Debates of Oct. 31st, 1994

Ethics

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

It was not six months after that. The problem was that he did not realize it had been construed like that until the end of September and he acted immediately. I said I would check the guidelines and I realized the guidelines needed improvement. I hope the hon. member will help us find the proper balance. It is the Reform Party which states that if members of Parliament do not do their jobs properly they should be recalled. This is great. They do not want members of Parliament who are ministers not to do their jobs as members of Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are asking the Prime Minister to be responsible. He is responsible for his ministers and we are asking him to take that responsibility seriously and ask for the resignation.

The current guidelines for ministers are common sense. A minister should not be seen to be giving preferential treatment to his or her friends and should not use this influence for personal or political gain. It is as simple as that.

Will the Prime Minister put the brakes on a damage control machine, muzzle his strategist and do the honourable and responsible thing and demand the resignation of the minister of heritage?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, last week I said no and this week I repeat, no.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

The Prime Minister was informed as early as October 1 of the mistake made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and decided to forget about it and not seek the advice of his ethics counsellor, Mr. Howard Wilson. The government consulted Mr. Wilson only at the very last moment, that is last Thursday, when the minister's mistake became public knowledge.

Are we to understand that, on October 1, the Prime Minister had already decided to keep his heritage minister, without having consulted his ethics counsellor?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said last week, namely that I was informed of the issue, I examined it and I presumed that everyone concerned had been consulted before a recommendation was made to me by the Privy Council Office.

I assumed that Mr. Wilson had been consulted when, in fact, he had not. However, this does not change the nature of the decision. I then decided that, as the minister had himself taken action to correct the situation, and even though I was not pleased, he could continue to fulfill his role as minister. I told the truth last week when I said that I thought Mr. Wilson had been consulted even though this was not the case. I did talk to him on the phone afterwards and he agreed with me. At least, what he told me did not make me change my mind.

In any case, ultimately I am the one who is responsible. I cannot share that responsibility with anyone: I am the Prime Minister of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, we heard a version last week and in the version that he is giving now the Prime Minister says that he talked on the phone to Mr. Wilson.

What did Mr. Wilson say to the Prime Minister?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry. I did not express myself clearly. I asked my staff-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

I talked several times to Mr. Wilson since then. At that time, however, I asked my staff: "Did you phone?" They said: "No." I then replied: "Phone him".

When I rose in this House, my staff had provided me with information on Mr. Wilson's opinion. Later, over the weekend, I had an opportunity to talk to him and discuss how to proceed in the future. This is what we did.

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

He is contradicting himself!

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

No, I am not contradicting myself at all. I said that I talked to Mr. Wilson over the weekend. And when I rose in this House, as I said last week, I had asked-

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

You are confused!

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Saint-Maurice, QC]

If you listen you will not be confused.

So, Mr. Wilson's opinion was given to me, and it was to the effect that this was acceptable.

Crtc

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.

My office learned in discussions this morning with the secretary general of the CRTC, and I quote Mr. Darling: "The commissioners on the subcommittee may have been influenced by the minister's letter".

When the Prime Minister decided to support the actions of the Minister of Canadian Heritage was he aware that the secretary general of the CRTC believed that the minister's letter may have influenced the process?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, probably not in this case because the application was denied.

[Jan Brown, Reform, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that answer is obvious because this whole process has been tainted. They had no other choice.

The Prime Minister even today has used the minister's second letter of September 30 as a defence that there was no intervention and that nothing was done wrong. We also know now why this second letter was missing from the CRTC file.

The secretary general of the CRTC says that the second letter was never put in the file because it came too late to be considered by the CRTC. This means that when the CRTC made its decision it was always under the impression that the minister had intervened and it remained so.

Given this new information, how can the Prime Minister possibly continue to defend the integrity of his minister?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, that is proof that the first letter had no effect at all.

Ethics

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

Mr. Speaker, last week, the Prime Minister said that he had consulted the ethics counsellor. Last Friday, we learned that the ethics counsellor was only consulted on Thursday morning, only a few minutes or a couple of hours before the speech by the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

Today we are told that the Prime Minister talked to his ethics counsellor, then the Prime Minister claimed that he did not express himself well and that, in fact, he had not talked to the ethics counsellor. If I understand correctly, the Prime Minister's advisors talked to the ethics counsellor.

I would like to know what the Prime Minister's advisors told him of the discussion they had with the ethics counsellor. Have I made myself clear enough?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, what I said is that my office contacted the ethics counsellor. When I arrived in the House of Commons, we had the ethics counsellor's advice. This is what I said.

His advice was given to me personally, and I said in this House that there were no grounds in the opinion he gave to make me change my mind. Over the week-end, I had the opportunity to talk with the ethics counsellor about what we should be doing in the future.

To avoid further controversy, for the time being, the ministers will have to send their recommendations to the ethics counsellor who will decide whether or not it is appropriate to send them to the various agencies concerned, while keeping in mind that every minister is also the elected representative of around 100,000 citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said earlier that the ethics counsellor agreed with him, and then stopped. Since he did not really agree, I presume-we have to guess-the Prime Minister added: There were no grounds in the opinion he gave to make me change my mind.

It might be because his opinion was different from that of the Prime Minister. We must be able to form our own opinion and the only way we can do so is for the Prime Minister to tell us,

today, what was the message he received from his ethics counsellor.

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I assumed full responsibility for the decision and I have nothing to add. I decided that the minister had corrected the situation as best he could at the end of September or the beginning of October, I accepted his explanations and I chose to keep him in the Cabinet.

This is my responsibility, not the responsibility of any counsellor in the government. I cannot share that responsibility with anyone.

Crtc

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this rhetoric about restoring integrity to government is beginning to sound a little hollow.

Perhaps this government is taking a page out of Mackenzie's book when he wrote: "Integrity is necessary but not necessarily integrity". The Prime Minister said, the red book proclaims, and all the Liberal candidates were talking about it, "open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program".

If the Prime Minister really believes in and is promoting an open government, why did he not inform this House when he first became aware of the heritage minister's letter to the CRTC?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I did not feel it was necessary. The letter was a public letter. The letter was in a file that everybody could consult. There was nothing secret about it. You could go and check this application. The minister's letter was the same as that of anybody else who had written representations in the same file. The CRTC welcomes opinion from citizens. The letter from the minister was with the pile of letters that were in the file. It was a public document. I did not feel I was obliged to reveal anything that in theory was known by the public.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we are observing here a tennis or ping pong game, back and forth, of responsibility. No one is willing to accept it. The minister does something and does not accept responsibility. The Prime Minister has a responsibility and he is not accepting it.

How is this Prime Ministerial responsibility defined? What are the responsibilities? Where does the buck stop? Are we going to get it there or there?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am have been saying for five days that the buck is stopping here. Right here. That is all.