Debates of Oct. 31st, 1994

New Delhi

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago today over 3,000 innocent Sikhs, children, women and men, were killed in the streets of New Delhi. Unfortunately 10 years later no one has been convicted.

To ensure that justice is done and that such violent acts against innocent minorities are not repeated, on behalf of all Sikh temples in Ontario I urge fellow members to join with me to view a photo exhibition on the riots and human rights violations in the Punjab today in the Commonwealth Room immediately following question period.

I hope that through such efforts Canada can urge the Indian government to bring to justice the perpetrators of the New Delhi riots.

Hibernia

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

Mr. Speaker, the rash decision by Hibernia management to transfer a large chunk of work from the Marystown shipyard to Saint John makes no sense and has to be reversed.

That was the message that a delegation from the Burin Peninsula and I conveyed this morning to my colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources. I thank her for undertaking to look into our concerns.

The proposed removal of work from Marystown has nothing to do with a lack of expertise, as suggested by my friend from Laurier-Sainte-Marie. On that one he is dead wrong, as I believe he now realizes.

The good news is that the Offshore Petroleum Board is going to review the Hibernia management decision. I am confident it will determine what I believe to be the case, namely that the whole affair has more to do with industry politics than it does with deadlines. The work can be just as quickly done at Marystown as it can be at Saint John and should be.

Greenhouse Gases

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at a recent conference of leaders in the natural gas industry, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy revealed the government's new strategy for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Instead of reducing Canadian emissions of greenhouse gases at the source, Canada is offering financial aid to reduce emissions in various developing countries.

Such a strategy sends a clear message to the industrialized countries that they do not have to act themselves to reduce their own emissions of polluting gases. This new strategy is nothing more or less than an admission of failure by this government, which refuses to put on the table and analyse all concrete measures to reduce the greenhouse effect in Canada, as it promised to do in 1992.

Minister Of Canadian Heritage

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker:

A certain minister of the crown Forgets the simple rule, That requires him to step right down If he has been a fool.

"As heritage minister, I hang my head, I've made a little blunder, Please just clarify the rules a bit Don't tear my world asunder."

For what price do we all place On friendship and loyalty, In Liberal circles there is a space For ministers who think they're royalty.

"Above the rules for mortal men, No way will I resign, Behaviour like this we see again, Who cares if the backbenches whine."

"But when we sat across the floor It was a different story, Now that we sit upon this side We act just like a Tory!"

The Late Carl McNeill

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today I was fortunate to take part in a presentation ceremony during which a cheque for $37,634.61 from the estate of Carl McNeill was presented to the Government of Canada.

Mr. McNeill was a 100-year old resident of my riding who was worried about the legacy of debt that had been left to the younger generation. Mr. McNeill left specific instructions in his will that the money be given to the federal government in order to pay off his share of the national debt to ensure a better future for others.

Walter and Marian MacDougald, long time friends and neighbours of Mr. NcNeill, presented the cheque to the Minister of Finance this morning. In addition to Mr. McNeill's donation to the government he also left a substantial amount of money to the University Hospital in London and the Salvation Army.

Carl McNeill set a tremendous example of the kind of patriotism and national loyalty for which all Canadians can strive. I thank him on behalf of all Canadians for his generosity and concern for our great country.

Liberal Party Of Canada

[Robert Bertrand, Liberal, Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to tell you that on the weekend I took part in a meeting of the General Council of the Liberal Party of Canada in Quebec City. Over 450 people from all regions of Quebec met there to celebrate the first anniversary of the Liberal government's election and to start to prepare their strategy for the coming referendum campaign in Quebec.

The participants had an opportunity to discuss such important issues as the reform of social programs with members of Parliament and took part in the finance minister's pre-budget consultation. At the end of this meeting, the party members were delighted with the visit from their leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, who had come to give them the signal to mobilize for the coming referendum. It was invigorating to see all these people, representing tens of thousands of party members in Quebec, meet to share their determination and their faith in a united Canada. Congratulations to the organizers and the participants who managed to make this great gathering a real celebration.

[English]

Ethics

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the word is out. Government auditors are being asked to be more gentle and more mild. They are being asked to emphasize the good things in their reports and to tone down their criticisms. Why are they doing this, you ask. It is because the Access to Information Act now means that the people are actually getting to see these reports.

Could it be the Liberals are afraid of being exposed? Is this why the Prime Minister has appointed his own personal ethics lapdog adviser, for damage control instead of a real independent, answerable to Parliament ethics counsellor? Is this government just as afraid as the Conservatives were that the public will find out what is going on behind closed doors? Are the Liberals keeping their high standing in the polls only because they are hiding the facts?

It is high time that we get some real openness, real honesty, real accountability in government. Canadians are beginning to question whether it will come from this government.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, in an unprecedented confession, the Prime Minister has admitted that four more ministers-I repeat four more-were guilty of interfering with the CRTC's decision-making process with respect to applications for licences.

Are we to understand that flying in the face of all precedents, the Prime Minister decided not to ask for the resignation of the Minister of Canadian Heritage because he realized he would have had to get rid of four other ministers as well who also tried to exert undue influence on the CRTC?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is not like that at all. In the case of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I was advised at the beginning of the month, as I said before, and I made my decision at that time; if I had decided to ask for his resignation, I should have done so then and there. The other ministers gave me the information personally, on the weekend.

When I looked at the guidelines I gave all ministers in November when they accepted their appointment, as I explained in my speech earlier this afternoon, a very clear distinction was made. Communications with judges are forbidden; the guideline was quite clear in this respect. In the case of quasi-judicial bodies which themselves very often invite the views of all kinds of people before reaching a decision, we had a different rule. I asked the ethics counsellor to look into this and make some suggestions. I hope we will also receive some suggestions from members of the Opposition. I heard about the situation regarding the other ministers after I asked them to check their files.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister felt it was appropriate to remind his ministers that it was necessary to protect the independence of courts of law, why did he forget to mention that quasi-judicial bodies, which often hand down decisions that are similar in nature, are even more vulnerable to ministerial interference from their responsible ministers?

My question to the Prime Minister is this: This morning, he mentioned all kinds of figures. He even referred to five or even 10 or 100 cases, but that makes no difference. How could he give the impression that the mistake made by the Minister of Canadian Heritage was not as serious since at least four other ministers did the same thing? Does this mean that for him, frequency attenuates the seriousness of the act?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in the case of the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I made it clear last week that when he was informed that it was interpreted as a supporting letter, although he as the minister did not want to support the application, he himself took the initiative of writing to the parties concerned and made it clear he did not intend to support any applications before the CRTC. We discussed that particular case because he was the Minister responsible for the CRTC.

In the case of the other ministers, they are not responsible for the CRTC but they are members who represented certain interests of their constituents. And that is the dilemma I want to resolve. I have asked Mr. Wilson to prepare some guidelines on the subject, and I hope there will be a debate in the House so that people can help us make the distinction, because in the case of the CRTC, they invite people to express their views before licences are issued. A constituent, his member and in fact members of all parties in this House made representations, and a few ministers, who also happen to be members made the same kind of representations. Perhaps we will have to find a different mechanism so that such members are able to act in the interests of their constituents without compromising their responsibilities as ministers.

[Lucien Bouchard, Bloc, Leader of the Opposition]

Mr. Speaker, if a minister is unable to make a distinction between his duties as a minister and his duties as a member, he deserves to be demoted to the rank of ordinary member.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he realizes that the mistake made by four other ministers as revealed this morning is a serious one. And in that case, does he not realize that what his Minister of Canadian Heritage did is even more serious, because, in addition to being a member of Cabinet, he is the Minister responsible for the CRTC and as such was supposed to protect the CRTC against undue interference from his four colleagues?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, in the case of the minister, he himself indicated that he did not intend to intervene to support the application. In any case, the letter did not indicate that he was going to do so but simply that he wanted to be kept informed of further developments.

As for the ministers who wrote, they did not write to the minister. They wrote a letter, which is now a public document, either to the secretary or the chairman of the CRTC. As soon as such documents are received by the commission, they are put in the public file, which any journalist or member of Parliament may check at any time. These were support letters like the 14,000 other support letters the CRTC has received with respect to applications during the past year.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to be making a distinction between a letter of support and any letter of representation. The letters sent by the colleagues of the minister of heritage are indeed letters of support, of direct interference in the affairs of the CRTC.

The Prime Minister had made a commitment to demand irreproachable conduct from his ministers and he even made it one of his priorities in the red book. Yet, he failed his first test miserably. He chose to forgive and forget without first consulting the ethics counsellor.

How can the Prime Minister, who claims to be concerned about integrity, explain to this House that he did not personally direct his ministers, as soon as they were sworn in, to consult the ethics counsellor before getting into trouble like the minister of heritage and other ministers?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, the ministers are urged to consult the ethics counsellor, who was appointed only a few months ago. The guidelines we gave them were clear: No communications whatsoever with the judiciary. This prohibition has been in place for at least 15 years.

As for quasi-judicial bodies, they may be contacted in some circumstances but only through the appropriate authorities. So they did not address their letters to the minister but to the commission's secretary general, who does not make any decisions or rulings. I think that only one wrote directly to the chairman.

The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans wrote on behalf of a small francophone community in his riding that would like to receive French-language television. They are criticizing a member for representing people who want to preserve their language, French, in difficult circumstances, but I am of the opinion that the minister would have failed in his duty as a member had he not defended his French-speaking constituents.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

How nice, Mr. Speaker! The minister of heritage wrote the Chairman of the CRTC on behalf of a small community in his riding. Frankly, does the Prime Minister not admit that, as this whole affair clearly shows, the government ethics counsellor should be accountable not to his office but to the House of Commons, to ensure that he has some effectiveness, real power and a decisive role?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, among the duties of the ethics counsellor is the requirement to submit an annual report to the House of Commons. This is part of his duties, of the responsibilities assigned to him.

I am surprised to hear the tone of voice used by the Bloc Quebecois, whose parent company calls people in, humiliates them, makes them confess, forces them to change their political convictions or fires them because they are not separatists. It is worse than it ever was, even under Duplessis.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the Prime Minister's statement this afternoon. He went to great lengths to compare the actions of members of Parliament to the actions of the member for Laval West with regard to their inquiries into the dealings of the CRTC. What the Prime Minister conveniently left out is that unlike these other parliamentarians, the Minister of Canadian Heritage is ultimately responsible for the CRTC. The Prime Minister is actually saying it is okay for ministers to lobby quasi-judicial bodies like the CRTC.

Why is the Prime Minister allowing this interference to continue without taking any action on the matter?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said clearly last week that when the minister realized his letter asking to be kept informed was perceived as a matter

of recommendation, he wrote on his own to state clearly that he did not want his letter to be interpreted that way.

I said that his letter was an honest mistake on behalf of one of his constituents. I would have preferred that it had not been written, but I recognize that nobody is absolutely perfect.

I said that we needed better guidelines. The guidelines are very clear for ministers calling judges. It is completely and clearly described. You cannot do it. That rule has applied to all ministers for at least 10 or 15 years. In the case of quasi-judicial bodies, because they are different and relate to a lot of different cases, we gave more flexibility.

In the case of the CRTC, the CRTC invites people to write to it to give their opinion about who should or should not get a licence. The CRTC received 15,000 such letters last year, five from ministers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would not say it was an honest mistake. I would say it was a dumb mistake because the minister was in charge of the CRTC.

The Prime Minister's rhetoric this afternoon would hold more weight had he fired the Minister of Canadian Heritage before reworking the ministerial code of conduct. As it now stands the Prime Minister's actions smack of political expediency and desperation.

Will the Prime Minister appoint a truly independent ethics counsellor so that existing preferential rules will be followed and will not have to be revised every time one of his cabinet ministers gets into trouble?

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that the ethics counsellor reports to the House once a year.

There is a principle which is very clear in my mind: At the end of the day whatever advisers I have around me, whatever counsel I receive about a decision, I have to take the responsibility. I have taken the responsibility. When the minister realized he had made a mistake he tried to correct the mistake on his own.

[An hon. member]

Six months later.