Jean Chrétien

[Crtc, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Crtc, October 31st, 1994]

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

[Crtc, October 31st, 1994]

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

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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-

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.