Jean Chrétien

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

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.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

I am pleased to withdraw those words. I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he should stick to the text; there is a difference between judicial-