Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate to address the amendment by my colleagues from the Bloc. Of course this debate deals with the department of culture, the Department of Canadian Heritage. Certainly some questions have been asked of the accountability and responsibility of that whole department very recently.
Those are the types of things we need to discuss because if the credibility is not there, if there is no sense of total ministerial accountability and responsibility, then what does the legislation really matter? What does the name of the department really matter? As you well know, Mr. Speaker, probably very little. If someone stands as the Prime Minister has for days and days and says: "I am totally responsible", then we want to see that responsibility. We do not want them just to say it, we want to see it.
As I address this amendment and the whole issue of this entire department I would like to call into question, sad to say but necessary to do, the need to look at some of the things that have happened in this department. Then we must ask: Can it even go on as such?
Should there be a department of multiculturalism in this country? When people come to Canada do they feel they should really be part of Canada, or should they be hunkered off in their own areas, getting government money to continue the way of life they so freely left to come to Canada? One certainly wonders about that. When there is a minister who we certainly need to ask questions about, it is important that we look at the whole scope of the entire matter.
Let us look at the chronology of incidents that have happened over the last several months. On March 15, 1994 this whole department was called into question when the minister wrote to Keith Spicer, the chairman of the CRTC, asking that it give "due consideration" to the application submitted by Konstantinos Daniilidis for a Greek language radio program licence. CRTC itself stamped the letter "intervention". The CRTC knows what an intervention is; perhaps this government does not but the CRTC does. Keith Spicer knows very clearly what an intervention is, or an interference if you will, by a minister.
Two weeks later on March 29, 1994, the secretary general of the CRTC, Allan Darling, responded to the minister by thanking him "for his letter of support". He knows what a letter of support is. That confirmed the CRTC considered it an intervention. The minister did not respond to this letter.
On September 20, months and months down the road, Mr. Mike Pattichis writes to the minister expressing concern about support for the Daniilidis application. He knew about it. The letter was never made public.
Ten days later on September 30 the Canadian heritage minister writes to Mr. Pattichis to clarify that his March 15 letter was not in fact intended to convey support, certainly not. It was just carbon copied to the CRTC. It was a six month delay in responding to clarify the issue. The letter arrived too late to be considered by the CRTC. The file regarding Daniilidis had already been closed. In other words: "Thank you. Appreciate that but you are out of time, you are out of luck". Therefore, the CRTC was clearly under the impression that there was ministerial support for this the entire way through.
On October 1, one month ago, the Prime Minister is made aware of the letter of support and exonerates the minister. How can anyone be exonerated for breaking guidelines so clearly, where this whole ministerial department is called into question?
The Prime Minister takes no action. Funny. This was confirmed on October 28 by the Prime Minister when he stated in the House in reference to his exchange with the "ethics counsellor": "The answer that came from him did not lead me to change my mind about the decision that I had made earlier in the month". I think it was October 1. We were still in the month of October. As if this was perfectly excusable.
On October 26 ethics counsellor Howard Wilson is contacted not by the Prime Minister nor his officials, but by a Southam News reporter. He is made aware of the March 15 letter. The ethics counsellor does not launch an investigation into that. CBC breaks the story on Prime Time News later that evening.
Sometime on the morning of October 27 the ethics counsellor Mr. Wilson is contacted by PMO staff regarding the minister. Does this smell like damage control, Mr. Speaker? You have seen damage control in your many, many years here. You saw it from within in fact and now you are seeing it perhaps from within again. The contents of that conversation remain confidential, but Mr. Wilson said that he was not asked to start an investigation. The details continue. Later on the morning of October 27 the minister stood up in this House claiming to have never seen the March 30 letter.
All of us get a lot of correspondence in our offices, but if we do not see it and if we do not have competent staff to bring very important letters like that to our attention, then as the minister and the Prime Minister have said so clearly, we bear the responsibility for that.
This minister should bear the responsibility for it. He has not. The Prime Minister has not and this is not the end of the story. He says of course that he "took immediate corrective action". From what we have heard in this House it would seem he was just acting as an MP, not as a minister, so he did not really need to take corrective action. However he took corrective action anyway because of what the Prime Minister said was a mistake. It was an error, so hey, go figure, as the high school students would say.
In question period on October 27 at 2.24 p.m., the leader of my party said: "There is a simple guideline that applies in these cases and it is a most elementary one". Surely we could all understand elementary guidelines in this House. It is understood in most jurisdictions. That is that ministers do not communicate with quasi-judicial, regulatory bodies except in three ways: through statute; through orders in council; or through public formal submissions to that body. They do not communicate through telephone calls or casual conversations or casual letters.
This is not proper. Mr. Speaker, you know it and I know it. I suspect all of us in this House know it. Perhaps it is time we admitted it.
At 2.29 p.m. that day the Prime Minister stated in question period: "I consulted the government's ethics counsellor and one I appointed for myself, and both confirmed that I had made the right decision in this matter". At 2.49 p.m. the Prime Minister said: "Mr. Speaker, the ethics counsellor has informed me that he is satisfied with the conclusion I have come to at this time". The ethics counsellor knew nothing about this. I have spoken often about the phantom of the Ottawa. It seems to me he has been speaking to the Prime Minister during overtime.
In question period on October 28, at 11.15 a.m. the Prime Minister said: "I did not speak to Mr. Wilson myself, but I asked that he be consulted yesterday". This contradicts the statement the Prime Minister said the day before. At 11.52 a.m. on October 28 the Prime Minister said: "In the case of quasi-judicial bodies that relate to the affairs of the government, the affairs of the members of Parliament and so on, the guidelines were not clear to my satisfaction. I have asked the Privy Council Office to prepare new guidelines in consultation with Mr. Wilson".
Sometime later on October 28 Mr. Wilson was approached by the PMO to look at existing guidelines for ministers. This was the first time Mr. Wilson received the confidential guidelines for ministers. Prior to this he had no knowledge of them whatsoever. It was October 28, getting very close to Halloween, the time of spooks and hobgoblins and all kinds of stories.
On October 31, the very day of Halloween, in his statement to the House the Prime Minister stood up and attempted to clarify the role of ministers in regard to quasi-judicial bodies. Interestingly, while he revealed other ministers' letters to the CRTC, he did not account for his own action nor the minister's actions over the last seven months.
During question period on Halloween, in full mask in response to the contradictory statements by the Prime Minister about the ethics counsellor, the member for Medicine Hat asked that the Prime Minister make the current ethics counsellor office independent and accountable to Parliament and not just the Prime Minister. Still during question period on Halloween at 2.45 p.m. in response to the contradictory statements by the Prime Minister, he asked again that this be accountable to Parliament.
Yesterday, November 2, in an interview with CBC Newsworld, Mr. Wilson admitted that he never undertook an investigation of the heritage minister affair. Can we look at a department that acts responsibly, that acts with integrity? Absolutely not.
Let me close my remarks by saying this entire ministry, this entire department, this cabinet minister and all his officials, the Prime Minister and this entire government has been tainted by more than tuna fish. This department has been called into disrepute and we are disgusted by it.