-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.