Preston Manning

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the rules of conduct for ministers and the role of the ethics counsellor are inseparably related. Yesterday in the House the Prime Minister refused to disclose the content of his office's discussions with his own ethics counsellor on the dubious activities of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. This sort of closed room, back door, ad hoc handling of an ethical issue runs contrary to his profession of interest in integrity and openness.

I ask the Deputy Prime Minister directly, what specifically was the advice that the ethics counsellor gave to the government? Did he or did he not say that the Minister of Canadian Heritage should resign?

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, what 99 per cent of ministers in other jurisdictions do

in that case is tell the constituent to communicate directly and give the reason why. This is not exactly rocket science.

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, they will not submit the guidelines.

Anyone who has studied the relations of ministers to quasi judicial tribunals knows there is only one guideline that ought to guide their communications. They should communicate only through statutes, orders in council and the submissions to public inquiries.

Yet yesterday the Prime Minister said the only guideline he gave ministers last November on such communications was that they should only do so through the duly authorized officials. Surely a Prime Minister who has spent 30 years in public life, some of them as justice minister, can come up with a better guideline than that.

Are the rest of the government's guidelines on ethics as weak and as poorly worded as this one? If so, what specifically is the government going to do to strengthen them?

[Ethics, November 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has said that ministers are handed a set of confidential rules of conduct by the PMO when they assume their responsibilities. This is the minimum we would expect from a government that claims to have a serious interest in integrity. The public and Parliament have a right to see such guidelines so they can judge whether they are kept or broken.

In keeping with the Prime Minister's commitment to integrity and openness in government, would the Deputy Prime Minister agree to table these original guidelines given to the ministers in November so we can compare them with any proposed new guidelines and the government's position on the activities of the Canadian heritage minister?

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister read all of the letter that the minister sent to the chairman of the CRTC. In his last paragraph he said this: "I trust that you will keep me abreast of developments in this matter and please do not hesitate to contact me should you require additional information".

What was the minister thinking of? Was he contemplating entering into an ongoing dialogue with the chairman of a regulatory authority over an application?

Is the Prime Minister really saying that this type of activity is acceptable? Will he not ask the minister to resign?

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, for one thing I am not a minister and not in the same position as the hon. minister.

There is a simple guideline that applies in these cases and it is a most elementary one. 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, and through public formal submissions to that body. They do not communicate through telephone calls or casual conversations or casual letters on behalf of applicants or interveners.

Can the Prime Minister assure this House that that simple guideline, which is understood in most jurisdictions, was given to the ministers of his government, including the Minister of Canadian Heritage?

[Crtc, October 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when this government was elected the Prime Minister promised a new era of integrity, including a code of conduct for ministers and an ethics counsellor.

I ask the Prime Minister, in ushering in this new era of integrity specifically what guidelines were given to cabinet ministers in regard to communication with quasi-judicial regulatory bodies like the CRTC?

[Penitentiaries, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a lot of these measures are after the fact, after the horse is out of the barn. Every time there is a problem in his jurisdiction the minister says it is a serious matter, there has been an investigation and steps are being taken, but in fact no action really occurs.

Since the Solicitor General is so fond of investigations, will he submit to an independent public inquiry to examine not only the problems within Corrections Canada but the negligence of the Solicitor General's department itself?

[Penitentiaries, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General of Ontario knew more about Bath than the Solicitor General. Not only did his office warn the Solicitor General about Mr. Kinsella, but the Bath medium security prison was medium security in name only. Bath was supposedly upgraded to medium security last May but many of the security features of a medium security facility were not in place, such as adequate lighting, surveillance cameras and double fencing.

Why did the Solicitor General allow murderers like Alex Kinsella and Serge Damien to be transferred to an institution that was incomplete and substandard from a security standpoint?

[Penitentiaries, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in 1978 Allan Kinsella murdered 24-year old Kenny Kaplinski by shooting him twice in the head. He was sentenced to life in prison.

In July he was transferred to the Bath penitentiary, in spite of the fact that the Solicitor General received two letters from the Assistant Attorney General of Ontario warning that Kinsella was unsuitable for transfer and likely to attempt escape.

The Solicitor General did not respond to these warnings and on October 19 Kinsella escaped from Bath along with Serge Damien who was serving life for murdering a credit union cashier with a sledge hammer.

Can the Solicitor General explain his negligence in this case, and what does he have to say to the people whose lives have been put at risk by this negligence?