Jean Chrétien

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

I just wanted to set the record straight, Mr. Speaker. If I said the word "lie"-

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what I meant is that he is confusing the two. Judicial is not the same as quasi-judicial. I clearly explained the difference between the two.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, he should stop lying to the House.

[Ethics, October 31st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this government has set high standards of integrity and probity for itself. I have made integrity a number one priority personnaly.

I have said it before, and I will say it again: Setting such standards for the holders of public office is essential in renewing and maintaining the faith of Canadians in their public instructions.

This is the case in particular of ministers who must remain above reproach at all times and in all of their activities, whether it be as ministers, members of Parliament or private citizens. That is the burden of public office, and one that we all gladly accept to bear.

Last week, the actions of the Minister of Heritage were discussed in this House. Legitimate concerns were raised which we all share.

Everyone understands the rule that no one is to call judges concerning cases they have under consideration. This applies to everyone-ministers, MPs and ordinary citizens.

The rule concerning relations with the judiciary is unequivocal and has been in force for over 10 years. No minister may communicate with members of the judiciary concerning any matter which they have before them in their judicial capacities, except through the Minister of Justice or through duly authorized officials of, or counsel acting for, that minister.

But the situation is not as clear with administrative tribunals. The guidance we gave ministers in this area was that on those rare occasions when any minister might wish to communicate with members of the quasi-judicial bodies concerning any matter which they have before them in their judicial capacities, they should only do so through the duly authorized officials.

In addition to considering quasi-judicial matters, these bodies may consider a whole range of administrative, regulatory and policy matters.

Even in relation to quasi-judicial matters before them, administrative tribunals defer from the courts. As part of the decision making process, some tribunals welcome representations from ordinary citizens and members of Parliament. These representations are put on the public record.

When a representation is sent to the CRTC it is a public document. For example from September 1993 to October 1994 the CRTC held 18 public hearings. It received 15,422 letters in support of licence applicants. Seventy-two were from members of Parliament, from all parties in this House. Representations were made by many Liberal members, including ministers, members from the Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party, the NDP, the Conservatives, and one independent.

Clearly we are not confronted with anything like calling a judge. What we are dealing with is the dilemma of ministers who also must fulfil their duties as members of Parliament who were elected to represent their constituents. That makes this whole area of relationships with administrative tribunals much more complex than with the courts.

I have learned a lesson too. This government has done a lot to give our ministers clear guidelines to do their jobs and avoid conflict of interest, including the historic ethics package we introduced in June. But now it is plain to me that the guidelines for dealing with administrative tribunals were not clear or complete enough.

Last Thursday, after Question Period, I gave instructions that all ministers and secretaries of State review their files and the operation of their offices to establish whether there existed any other cases like that of the Minister of Heritage, not only with respect to the CRTC but also with respect to other administrative tribunals.

We have found several cases of a similar nature:

The Minister of Citizenship and immigration, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Secretary of State for Latin America and Africa have each written, over the last year, to the CRTC in support of license applicants. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has also written on behalf of his constituents to a number of administrative agencies, including the Pensions Plan Review Tribunal and a board of referees concerning unemployment insurance benefits, as he has always done during his long career as member of this House.

This is what we know so far. There may be others. But whether there are five or a hundred, the issue is the same.

As Prime Minister I am dealing with ministers who did not act for personal gain, who did not act for partisan purposes. In each case they acted in good faith for their constituents. Let us put what they did into perspective. There is no scandal here, no violation of integrity, and no breach of public trust.

How did this happen? I believe it is because we have not been clear in distinguishing between the role of a cabinet minister and members of Parliament in our guidelines when it comes to dealing with administrative tribunals. The government bears responsibility for that, and so do I.

I promised Canadians we would provide an honest government and we have. I promised them we would provide an open and accountable government and we have. But I did not, and never could promise an infallible government.

I said before that this government will make mistakes, but they will be honest mistakes and we will always move to correct them. That is what we are doing today.

On Friday I gave instructions for more complete guidelines to be developed in consultation with the ethics counsellor to ensure that ministers deal with administrative tribunals in an appropriate manner. This morning I wrote to each minister and secretary of state instructing them that until the new guidelines were in place all dealings with administrative tribunals must be done through the ethics counsellor, Mr. Wilson.

At Cabinet tomorrow, I will be reviewing the whole issue with ministers. No one wants to disenfranchise the constituents of a minister.

For example, on Saturday morning, I spent three hours in my riding of Saint-Maurice receiving my constituents. I even received some constituents from an opposition riding, Trois-Rivières. The Chamber of Commerce and mayor of Trois-Rivières came to see me. It is not even in my riding, but I thought that as minister responsible for the region, I would not punish the mayor who wanted to see me and just tell him to go and see his Bloc Quebecois member; because he wanted to see me, I received him.

Was I wrong? Was I right? I think that it is part of my duty to receive, as much as possible, people who want to see me. On the other hand, no one wants ministers to unduly influence administrative agencies. The challenge is to strike the right balance in imposing constraints on a minister that are not imposed on an ordinary member of Parliament.

Staff for ministers and secretaries of state will also be briefed. Finally, I believe this is a matter of legitimate debate and I undertake to hold a debate in the House of Commons before these guidelines are finalized. All members of this House have a responsibility to put my ministers-and me personally-under the closest possible scrutiny. We welcome that scrutiny, but that does not mean turning legitimate concerns into matters of scandal where none exists.

All my career I have believed that honesty is the best policy, that a government and a Prime Minister must level with Canadians, tell them the truth, and treat them with the respect and intelligence they deserve. That is what I am doing here today. I am proud of this government's record of honesty and integrity. We have worked hard to earn it. But honesty and integrity also mean facing up to moments like this. That is the responsibility that this government and I will never betray.

One of the values of our parliamentary system and our administrative system that is very important to me is that all cabinet ministers, including the Prime Minister, must first be elected in a riding where he or she is seeking the support and confidence of thousands of people like any other member of Parliament. After that he or she becomes the Prime Minister or is called to serve in the cabinet. The first duty of all of us is to make sure that the people who have voted for us are duly represented in this House of Commons and that their interests are defended. It is difficult sometimes.

For example when I was member for Beauséjour and Leader of the Opposition, a group decided to close a radio station. A representation was made before me. Some local people said: "We want to keep a radio station in operation in Shawinigan. Will you support us to get a licence if it is closed?". It was not in my riding but I knew these people. They knew there was interest in keeping a radio station operating in Shawinigan and I told them I would support them. They were in the business and wanted to buy the assets and operate it.

Fortunately somebody else bought the station and I did not have to support them. However, the local citizens of my riding wanted to keep a radio station in operation. They thought a person like me who was still a member of Parliament could help them to maintain a link of communication for the local citizens through a radio station. That is the type of thing and that is done in public.

A letter that a member of Parliament or a minister writes to the CRTC is not a private letter. It is not a confidential letter. All these letters are public documentation in a public trial that everybody can look at, just like the 14,000 people who wrote in support of applications.

When I asked my ministers-there may be a couple of others, I do not know who wrote letters like that in support of applications-I found that one of them, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, wrote in support of francophones in his riding who want to make sure that all the news programs for French news are accessible to the francophones of his riding.

Apparently he wrote too late, but the reality is that he was representing the interests of a little group of francophones isolated in the southwest corner of Newfoundland who wanted to communicate with people who speak French, the other official language of Canada, at home as completely as possible.

I am happy to report what I have been able to gather over the weekend to clarify the situation. From here on, while we are developing the proper guidelines, ministers will have to keep in mind all the time that we are members of Parliament and we are at the same time ministers and what are due or undue public interventions such as those I have mentioned.

I think it was in response to requests by their constituents in open fashion in open files. That is why I did not ask anybody to do anything. However, we will give proper guidelines after I hope a debate in this House of Commons so that the members of Parliament can tell us how to resolve this obligation to serve the nation as a minister and to serve the people who have voted for these ministers before they were called upon to serve in the cabinet.

With leave of the House, I would like to table a copy of the letters that ministers have written to the CRTC. These are public letters whose release in no way violates people's right to privacy. I would like to table these letters immediately.

[Crtc, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, of course when a minister is faced with a situation like that he or she has to realize he or she is a minister at the same time.

Members write all the time to commissions recommending somebody or asking that a file be studied. A minister has to be more careful. That is why I said the Minister of Canadian Heritage should have been more careful, but he was acting in good faith as a member of Parliament. His letter was very clear. He asked for due process. He was not asking for a favour.

In reality what happened was that when the decision was made the person he wrote for did not receive the permit. In fact somebody else got the permit, so the letter did not help at all.

[Ethics, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have explained very clearly the rules that apply to communications with the judiciary. I explained clearly that my conclusion is that we have to make some clear directives in relation to the quasi-judiciary bodies that exist in the government.

Of course all these bodies report through ministers to Parliament. That is one of the problems. Ministers receive communications from members of Parliament. Every member of Parliament is obliged as a member of Parliament to listen to representations from constituents and ask that they be treated fairly. That is the work of every member of Parliament and ministers are members of Parliament.

We have to make the situation clear as to how a minister can be a member of Parliament at the same time. We cannot deprive

the constituencies that have ministers or the prime minister of the responsibility of public office holders to deliver the services that a member of Parliament is expected to do for his or her constituents.

[Ethics, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, ministers have received books on guidelines. I have explained earlier that in the case of communications with the judiciary it is very clear they cannot do that directly by telephone or by letter.

They have to call, if they have a problem, the Minister of Justice who is the only one authorized to do something if the Minister of Justice decides to do something.

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. I hope these guidelines will be ready very soon, and I will instruct ministers to follow them very clearly.

[Ethics, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we debated that theory in the House at that time. We came to the conclusion that at the end of the day, whatever advisers you have around you, when you are the Prime Minister you make the decision. Even if that adviser is to report to Parliament, I will have to decide whether I do or do not keep a minister in the cabinet. Nobody but the Prime Minister chooses a cabinet minister and is responsible for the cabinet.

The man does the advising but the decision remains the responsibility of the only one who is responsible for the cabinet, the Prime Minister of the country.

[Ethics, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yes, I consulted. I asked somebody to call him to ask him the question. He gave a very clear answer. He did not speak to me directly. Most of the time I have a staff that consults with me because I have a lot of work to do. The answer that came from him did not lead me to change my mind about the decision I had made earlier in the month. I think it was October 1 and we are still in the month of October.

[Ethics, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I explained the situation yesterday. I said that it was an honest mistake. The minister recognized that himself and acted without pressure from anybody outside. When he realized it was interpreted like that and when checking the guidelines he realized he wanted to correct the situation and he wrote the letter. I was satisfied with that.

I would have preferred that he had not written the letter of course. But as I said, when you look at the facts it was not to influence a decision, it was to have a decision. When you look at the facts today the letter was written in relation to one applicant who did not get the permit. He lost it.