VOLUME 133 NUMBER 115 1st SESSION 35th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Thursday, October 27, 1994 Speaker: The Honourable Gilbert Parent HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, October 27, 1994 The House met at 10 a.m. I wish to table the letter. Members will note that I took these actions before the matter became public. I did my best to clear _______________ up and correct the situation not because of public or media pressure which did not exist at the time but because it was the Prayers right thing to do. _______________ Being an MP and a minister is not always easy. Among other things it is a learning experience. In hindsight it was imprudent [English] to send that original letter to the CRTC. I regret any misunder- standing it may have caused. PRIVILEGE I assure the House that I have never for a moment had any CRTC hesitation or misunderstanding about my role or responsibilities as a minister. As I said in the House on October 3 in answer to a Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage, question from the member for Rimouski—Témiscouata, the Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last March I was approached at my constitu- minister of heritage cannot dictate to an independent body like ency office by a constituent whom I had not met before and the CRTC, which is also a regulating agency. It would be quite whom I have not met since, to write a letter drawing the inappropriate for the Minister of Canadian Heritage to tell it attention of the CRTC to his application for a radio licence. I what to do. explained to this constituent that as minister responsible I could not interfere with the workings of the CRTC, but I agreed as his (1005) member of Parliament to do my best to ensure that he was treated fairly. I have held to that position every moment on this job and the House has my commitment that I will continue to do so. On March 15, I wrote to the chairman of the CRTC in my capacity as an MP for this constituent asking the commission to The Speaker: Of course the statement made to the House is a give the application a fair hearing. This was the letter of an MP clarification. The hon. minister has not asked me to rule on a seeking to ensure that a constituent received due process. specific question of privilege at this time, and so the Chair would accept the statement as given. At least at this point there I wish to table the letter. The letter was not meant in any way does not seem to be any reason for me to rule on a question of to be an endorsement of the licence application, nor was it privilege. intended to exert pressure on the CRTC. I also understand that on March 30 the CRTC acknowledged my letter, categorizing it as a letter in support of the licence applicant. That acknowledge- * * * ment letter was never brought to my attention. If it had been, I would have immediately rectified the matter. POINTS OF ORDER As soon as I did learn that one of the interested parties wrote STATEMENTS BY MINISTERS to me in September regarding my ‘‘alleged support’’ for the licence application, I took immediate corrective action. I wrote Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley—Lloydminster, Ref.): to the interested party, clarifying my earlier letter and clearing Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House there has been a up any misunderstanding. standing agreement between the government and the opposition In this letter dated September 30, I wrote: parties that ministers’ statements would be given to opposition parties for their critics’ perusal sufficiently ahead of time so My letter of March 15, 1994 to the CRTC simply asked that due consideration be given to the application. It is not intended to convey support for or they could prepare to respond to ministers’ statements. opposition to the application. The CRTC is the body mandated by law to make independent decisions on all such applications. It is therefore for the CRTC to The agreement was that if a minister’s statement were made in weigh the merits of the arguments raised by the applicants and the interveners. the morning, that statement would be given to opposition parties 7273 COMMONS DEBATES October 27, 1994 Routine Proceedings the night before. This has not happened in this instance. We have ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS had less than one hour’s notice. We protest greatly. We are concerned about the minister’s mismanagement of this situation and we would ask him to defer the reading of the statement until [English] we have had proper time to review the statement so we can effectively perform our role in opposition. PARLIAMENT HILL The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will see if I can help the Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and Gov- matter. I will come back to the hon. secretary of state if he ernment Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada should so choose. From consultation I understand this is an Opportunities Agency, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, at the outset let me informal agreement between the parties. Certainly the Chair is say to my colleagues opposite that I apologize for any inconve- prepared to recognize the minister, as is appropriate, to make a nience which may have been caused to them as a result of the statement. statement not getting there earlier as opposed to the late time they received it. Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House Mr. Silye: You knew about it for months and you cannot of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for the record, we have an co–operate. agreement between parties that we will give enough advance notice with documents for ministerial statements. This has been Mr. Dingwall: If the hon. member finds the subject matter so respected in the past. I want to assure my colleague that it will difficult to comprehend I will read very slowly so that he can continue to be respected. understand each and every word. I am prepared to be fully co–operative with the opposition in every way. I was extending Sometimes situations arise which we have to deal with an apology for the inconvenience which we caused to the immediately. This is the case, as was already explained to the opposition. hon. member previous to the opening of the House. We under- stand his concerns and we give the assurance that we will However I believe the minister of state and the whip for our continue to respect the agreement we have. party informed the opposition of the miscue which took place. I felt compelled that we would come here this morning to share This is an exceptional circumstance as the minister will this information and have members of the opposition add their explain to the House. There are some parts already public. We comments to the decisions which have been arrived at. believe it is important to do this as soon as possible since it seems there was no agreement before the House opened that we I want to take this opportunity to advise members of the could have done it during question period. We are proceeding. House and Canadians whom we represent of the latest initiative We will have the statement now. related to the long range plan for the preservation and rehabilita- tion of our most important national symbol, the Parliament (1010) Buildings. [Translation] Over the last number of years funding for renovations to Parliament Hill has been severely restricted. The Auditor Gen- Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond—Wolfe, B.Q.): Mr. Speak- eral in his 1992 report noted that the government has neglected er, since the beginning of the 35th Parliament, it was understood to undertake most of the necessary repairs and renovations to the by the party in power and the Official Opposition that the latter parliamentary precinct identified in the 1970s and the 1980s. would receive prior notice of a minister’s statement. We all know that our role in this House is to do our job as well as we Parliament Hill requires urgent attention. The simple fact is can, in the best interest of the citizens of this country. Today, that we can no longer afford to neglect it. Over the next 12 to 15 however, this understanding has been compromised by the fact years, and I wish to underline this point, the buildings and that a ministerial statement will be made without prior notice to grounds will require considerable attention. During that period the opposition. We feel that this makes it difficult for us to play we will in turn address the requirements of all buildings on the our role. Hill to guarantee that in the future they remain safe for Cana- dians and healthy for the occupants. The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I have heard comments from both parties, but I will now proceed with Statements by [Translation] Ministers. We want to ensure that the buildings and grounds on Parlia- I therefore recognize the Minister of Public Works and ment Hill are energy–efficient, are relatively cheap to operate, Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada meet environmental standards and are accessible for all Cana- Opportunities Agency. dians. We must protect and preserve our national heritage. 7274 October 27, 1994 COMMONS DEBATES Routine Proceedings [English] approximately $265 million. Of course we cannot afford to spend all that money at once nor can we afford to shut down the The long range plan developed by the Department of Public essential operations of Parliament.