Jean Chrétien

[Ethics, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is not about that at all. I said that the Prime Minister is responsible. I was made aware of the problem. I looked at all the facts and I made the decision. I am fully responsible.

If I were to make the wrong decision and then come into this House and say that I received advice from somebody telling me to do this or that you would have said: "You are the one responsible". I take full responsibility on that matter.

The Prime Minister can consult whomever he wants. At the end of the day when he gets up in this House he is the only person responsible. I am not running away from my responsibilities.

[Ethics, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when you are Prime Minister, you have people working for you, preparing reports and discussing issues. Officials worked on this issue and then made recommendations.

As to the minister's letter, I was of the opinion that he had made a mistake, but when he realized that, he himself corrected the situation. I knew that the issue had been reviewed by lawyers

from the Privy Council Office. These people do not come to see me personally; I have an excellent Clerk of the Privy Council who keeps me informed.

I did receive the recommendation. I did not ask them to whom they had talked. The recommendation was made to the Prime Minister who is fully responsible.

The Prime Minister is fully responsible. With all the facts in front of me I said I think that the minister made an error in not being that careful but he tried to correct it as soon as he realized his error. I did not ask him to resign. Eventually I asked if Mr. Wilson had been consulted in the process. I have been told he was not. Therefore, I asked that he be consulted right away. He was consulted yesterday and he gave his advice. The advice he gave was given to me and it did not force me to change my mind about the decision I took a few days ago.

[Ethics, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I checked the long-standing guidelines on this, and those concerning judges are very clear. They say that anyone who has a problem with the judiciary must go to the Minister of Justice. It is very clear that a minister cannot write or telephone a judge. Even when I was a minister, there were guidelines to the effect that one must go to the Minister of Justice, who must use his judgment.

As for the guidelines for members of Parliament and ministers concerning quasi-judicial bodies, they say that there must be communications among these bodies, but after reading the guidelines yesterday, I concluded that they were not clear enough and I ordered that new ones be prepared.

[Ethics, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when I was informed of the minister's letter, I knew that Privy Council advisers had analyzed the problem and I was given a recommendation to that effect. I did not know whom they consulted. I was briefed on the various options. I knew that Mr. Sharp had been consulted and I thought that Mr. Wilson had been consulted, but that did not change the decision. The decision is still the Prime Minister's responsibility. The Prime Minister cannot say, "My counsellor advised me to do this or that". At the end of the day, the Prime Minister must take his responsibilities and that is what I did.

[Ethics, October 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I did not speak to Mr. Wilson myself, but I asked that he be consulted yesterday.

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

No, Mr. Speaker.

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I explained exactly the situation. It is not the same situation at all. I looked at this situation with the documentation that is in front of the public. The minister acted as soon as he learned that his letter created the impression that he had tried to influence the case. He clarified it very clearly in unequivocal terms. I am satisfied that he has done in the circumstances what had to be done to clarify it to make sure there was no ambiguity.

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of this month.

[Registered Retirement Savings Plans, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have to wait. The budget will be tabled in February, as is the case every year. The answer will then be known. In the meantime, the Minister of Finance is doing his homework. I think it is a very good idea to consult people and not rule out any solution. Let us not forget that some people complain that our tax system is not always adequate and is sometimes unfair. The minister is considering the whole issue of taxation. Moreover, he is inviting all Canadians to make representations. For example, Mr. Battle, who works in the field of social policy in Canada, appeared before the committee yesterday and said that the government could go ahead with its reform but should also look at the taxation issue to ensure that the system is fair to all Canadians.

[Registered Retirement Savings Plans, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is doing something that has never been done previously, before a budget is tabled. He is holding vast consultations with Canadians. Everything is subject to review. There may be people who favour that option. I do not know. Once this consultation exercise is completed, the minister will have all the necessary information to prepare a budget with a very clear objective: To create jobs and to reduce the deficit.