Bill C-2 (Historical)

Federal Accountability Act

An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability

Part 1 enacts the Conflict of Interest Act and makes consequential amendments in furtherance of that Act. That Act sets out substantive prohibitions governing public office holders. Compliance with the Act is a deemed term and condition of a public office holder’s appointment or employment. The Act also sets out a detailed regime of compliance measures to ensure conformity with the substantive prohibitions, certain of which apply to all public office holders and others of which apply to reporting public office holders. The Act also provides for a regime of detailed post-employment rules. Finally, the Act establishes a complaints regime, sets out the powers of investigation of the Commissioner and provides for public reporting as well as a regime of administrative monetary penalties.
Amongst other matters, the consequential amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act provide for the appointment and office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner along with his or her tenure, expenses, duties and other administrative matters.
Part 1 also amends the Canada Elections Act to
(a) reduce to $1,000 the amount that an individual may contribute annually to a registered party, and create a distinct $1,000 annual limit on contributions to the registered associations, the nomination contestants and the candidates of a registered party;
(b) reduce to $1,000 the amount that an individual may contribute to an independent candidate or to a leadership contestant;
(c) reduce to $1,000 the amount that a nomination contestant, a candidate or a leadership contestant may contribute to his or her own campaign in addition to the $1,000 limit on individual contributions;
(d) totally ban contributions by corporations, trade unions and associations by repealing the exception that allows them to make an annual contribution of $1,000 to the registered associations, the candidates and the nomination contestants of a registered party and a contribution of $1,000 to an independent candidate during an election period;
(e) ban cash donations of more than $20, and reduce to $20 the amount that may be contributed before a receipt must be issued or, in the case of anonymous contributions following a general solicitation at a meeting, before certain record-keeping requirements must be met; and
(f) increase to 5 years after the day on which the Commissioner of Canada Elections became aware of the facts giving rise to a prosecution, and to 10 years following the commission of an offence, the period within which a prosecution may be instituted.
Other amendments to the Canada Elections Act prohibit candidates from accepting gifts that could reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the candidate in the performance of his or her duties and functions as a member, if elected. The wilful contravention of this prohibition is considered to be a corrupt practice. A new disclosure requirement is introduced to require candidates to report to the Chief Electoral Officer any gifts received with a total value exceeding $500. Exceptions are provided for gifts received from relatives, as well as gifts of courtesy or of protocol. The amendments also prohibit registered parties and registered associations from transferring money to candidates directly from a trust fund.
The amendments to the Lobbyists Registration Act rename the Act and provide for the appointment by the Governor in Council of a Commissioner of Lobbying after approval by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. They broaden the scope for investigations by the Commissioner, extend to 10 years the period in respect of which contraventions may be investigated and prosecuted, and increase the penalties for an offence under the Act. In addition, they empower the Commissioner to prohibit someone who has committed an offence from lobbying for a period of up to two years, prohibit the acceptance and payment of contingency fees and prohibit certain public office holders from lobbying for a period of five years after leaving office. They require lobbyists to report their lobbying activities involving certain public office holders and permit the Commissioner to request those office holders to confirm or correct the information reported by lobbyists.
Amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act prohibit members of the House of Commons from accepting benefits or income from certain trusts and require them to disclose all trusts to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner. The amendments also authorize the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to issue orders requiring members to terminate most trusts and prohibiting them from using the proceeds from their termination for political purposes. In cases where the trusts are not required to be terminated, the amendments authorize the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to make orders prohibiting members from using the trusts for political purposes. An offence is created for members who do not comply with such orders. The amendments also provide that, in the event of a prosecution, a committee of the House of Commons may issue an opinion that is to be provided to the judge before whom the proceedings are held.
Finally, Part 1 amends the Public Service Employment Act to remove the right of employees in ministers’ offices to be appointed without competition to positions in the public service for which the Public Service Commission considers them qualified.
Part 2 harmonizes the appointment and removal provisions relating to certain officers.
Amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act establish within the Library of Parliament a position to be known as the Parliamentary Budget Officer, whose mandate is to provide objective analysis to the Senate and House of Commons about the estimates of the government, the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy, to undertake research into those things when requested to do so by certain Parliamentary committees, and to provide estimates of the costs of proposals contained in Bills introduced by members of Parliament other than in their capacity as ministers of the Crown. The amendments also provide the Parliamentary Budget Officer with a right of access to data that are necessary for the performance of his or her mandate.
Part 3 enacts the Director of Public Prosecutions Act which provides for the appointment of the Director of Public Prosecutions and one or more Deputy Directors. That Act gives the Director the authority to initiate and conduct criminal prosecutions on behalf of the Crown that are under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Canada. That Act also provides that the Director has the power to make binding and final decisions as to whether to prosecute, unless the Attorney General of Canada directs otherwise, and that such directives must be in writing and published in the Canada Gazette. The Director holds office for a non-renewable term of seven years during good behaviour and is the Deputy Attorney General of Canada for the purposes of carrying out the work of the office. The Director is given responsibility, in place of the Commissioner of Canada Elections, for prosecutions of offences under the Canada Elections Act.
Part 3 also amends the Access to Information Act to ensure that all parent Crown corporations, and their wholly-owned subsidiaries, within the meaning of section 83 of the Financial Administration Act are encompassed by the definition “government institution” in section 3 of the Access to Information Act and to add five officers, five foundations and the Canadian Wheat Board to Schedule I of that Act. It adjusts some of the exemption provisions accordingly and includes new exemptions or exclusions relating to the added officers and the Crown corporations. It empowers the Governor in Council to prescribe criteria for adding a body or an office to Schedule I and requires Ministers to publish annual reports of all expenses incurred by their offices and paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It adds any of those same officers and foundations that are not already included in the schedule to the Privacy Act to that schedule, ensures that all of those parent Crown corporations and subsidiaries are encompassed by the definition “government institution” in section 3 of that Act, and makes other consequential amendments to that Act. It amends the Export Development Act to include a provision for the confidentiality of information. It revises certain procedures relating to the processing of requests and handling of complaints and allows for increases to the number of investigators the Information Commissioner may designate to examine records related to defence and national security.
Amendments to the Library and Archives of Canada Act provide for an obligation to send final reports on government public opinion research to the Library and Archives of Canada.
Finally, Part 3 amends the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act to
(a) establish the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal and empower it to make remedial orders in favour of victims of reprisal and to order disciplinary action against the person or persons who took the reprisal;
(b) provide for the protection of all Canadians, not only public servants, who report government wrongdoings to the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner;
(c) remove the Governor in Council’s ability to delete the name of Crown corporations and other public bodies from the schedule to the Act;
(d) require the prompt public reporting by chief executives and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner of cases of wrongdoing; and
(e) permit the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner to provide access to legal advice relating to the Act.
Part 4 amends the Financial Administration Act to create a new schedule that identifies and designates certain officials as accounting officers and, within the framework of their appropriate minister’s responsibilities and accountability to Parliament, sets out the matters for which they are accountable before the appropriate committees of Parliament. A regime for the resolution of issues related to the interpretation or application of a policy, directive or standard issued by the Treasury Board is established along with a requirement that the Treasury Board provide a copy of its decision to the Auditor General of Canada.
Part 4 also amends the Financial Administration Act and the Criminal Code to create indictable offences for fraud with respect to public money or money of a Crown corporation, and makes persons convicted of those offences ineligible to be employed by the Crown or the corporation or to otherwise contract with the Crown.
Other amendments to the Financial Administration Act clarify the authority of the Treasury Board to act on behalf of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada on matters related to internal audit in the federal public administration. They also set out the deputy head’s responsibility for ensuring that there is an internal audit capacity appropriate to the needs of the department and requires them, subject to directives of the Treasury Board, to establish an audit committee. The Financial Administration Act, the Farm Credit Canada Act and the Public Sector Pension Investment Board Act are amended to require Crown corporations to establish audit committees composed of members who are not officers or employees of the corporation. Other amendments to the Financial Administration Act require, subject to directions of the Treasury Board, that all grant and contribution programs be reviewed at least every five years to ensure their relevance and effectiveness.
Amendments made to the Financial Administration Act and to the constituent legislation of a number of Crown corporations provide for appointments of directors for up to four years from a current maximum of three years.
Part 4 also amends the Canadian Dairy Commission Act, the Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation Act and the National Capital Act to require different individuals to perform the duties of chair of the Board of Directors and chief executive officer of the corporation.
Part 5 amends the Auditor General Act by expanding the class of recipients of grants, contributions and loans into which the Auditor General of Canada may inquire as to the use of funds, whether received from Her Majesty in right of Canada or a Crown corporation. Other amendments provide certain immunities to the Auditor General.
Amendments to the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act provide for the appointment and mandate of a Procurement Auditor.
Part 5 also amends the Financial Administration Act to provide for a government commitment to fairness, openness and transparency in government contract bidding, and a regulation-making power to deem certain clauses to be set out in government contracts in relation to prohibiting the payment of contingency fees and respecting corruption and collusion in the bidding process for procurement contracts, declarations by bidders in respect of specific criminal offences, and the provision of information to the Auditor General of Canada by recipients under funding agreements.

Federal Accountability Act

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very grateful to my colleague for this question, but I must tell him that what is now going on in the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is distressing. It is distressing for the public, because what they are seeing there is not committee members who genuinely want to work, to bring forward a genuine access to information act.

Yesterday, for example, we had one of the rare meetings that have been held since the last election, and all the stops were pulled out, particularly by the Conservative Party members, to ensure that we did not adopt a work plan that would have allowed us to ask the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to come before us with an access to information bill.

Could anyone imagine the Conservative members throwing up roadblocks to prevent their Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada from bringing us, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, an access to information bill? Is this not the biggest and best evidence that the Conservative government has made only cosmetic changes in Bill C-2, but does not want a genuine, modernized, strengthened access to information act?

This makes the partisan motives behind C-2 even plainer. Certainly it has a few small good points, and so it is a step in the right direction, and so, will we vote for it? Bill C-2 is still also a partisan bill, and what it does is throw up roadblocks for the Liberal leadership race. It also coincides with an opportunistic, partisan reason, so that they can go into the next election campaign, which may happen sooner than later, this being a minority government, with an accountability bill, and can tell their voters to look at this lovely little Accountability Act. Except that this bill does not contain the important part: the transparency component, the access to information component. And so this bill will not have all the teeth it should, in order for the people of Quebec and of Canada to feel comfortable in a democratic country.

[Vivian Barbot, Bloc, Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent presentation on access to information.

Personally, I find that this aspect is seriously lacking in the bill before us. You and I are often present in this House—perhaps you are obliged to be here more than me. The typical response of the governing party, particularly the cabinet, always begins with “As everyone knows, the Liberal Party did nothing for the past 13 years”. Their answers often end there. They have one line that they repeat endlessly.

The fact that the Access to Information Act is not at issue will serve as a shield for this government later on. I believe it is extremely important to continue to exert pressure in order to ensure that the government understands the importance of this component.

Does my colleague consider the Access to Information Act as an essential tool in the exercise of democracy? I do not really understand how the government has failed to grasp the importance of this and of including it in the legislation.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

The hon. member for Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert may give a brief reply.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my reply will indeed be very brief. My hon. colleague from Papineau is entirely correct. It is tiresome to hear, every minute of every day, that the Liberal Party did nothing for 13 years, but that they, the Conservatives, are taking action. It is equally tiresome and deplorable that in the case of a real Access to Information Act, this is not true. They are not taking any action.

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Gatineau, the Museum of Science and Technology.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak at report stage of Bill C-2 and to discuss the second group of motions.

There are several amendments which have been withdrawn, but there are a number of amendments of which we are in favour, including my motion, Motion No. 13, and Motion No. 20 which was tabled by a member of the Liberal caucus, the member for Malpeque. I am not going to speak to the motion that the member for Malpeque tabled. He will do that himself.

I will briefly state that my amendment, for which I believe I have the consent of the four parties which are represented in this House, would ensure that clarity is brought to the issue of which subsidiaries are to come under access to information with the amendments that have been brought forth. It was clearly the will of members of the committee, and I believe it will prove to be the will of the House, that it should only be wholly owned subsidiaries of an institution or an agency that are deemed to be government institutions that should come under the various access to information provisions.

Athough it may seem to some members to be a little off topic, but I do not believe it is, I would like to talk about the actual objectives of Bill C-2 as claimed by the government, as compared to the legislation that we actually see before us.

There are a whole series of clauses in Bill C-2 that the government brought forth. In some cases the committee members in their wisdom successfully amended them or removed them entirely to ensure that the objective of true accountability, transparency and independent oversight was in fact achieved through the bill .

Unfortunately, we did not always succeed, neither the four Liberal members, nor the two Bloc members, and in some cases, surprise, surprise, the one NDP member.

We were successful in one area which is terribly important to our parliamentary and constitutional democracy. That is the principle that has existed for some 400 or 500 years, if not a little longer, on constitutional autonomy of the House or of Parliament and of its members.

Unfortunately, Bill C-2 in its original form would have subjugated the constitutional autonomy of the House and of its members to the judiciary. We have a clear parliamentary democracy and a Constitution that states there is such a thing as constitutional autonomy of the House and that the courts are not the proper place to determine the conduct of the House. It is up to the House and its internal mechanisms and internal rules to deal with how the House proceeds to deal with matters of importance and how it will regulate the conduct and behaviour of members of Parliament.

We, the Liberal members, brought forth a whole series of amendments in order to ensure that the constitutional autonomy of the House and its members was not impeded or diminished. Happily, we were able to see those amendments go through. I am quite pleased about that. I hope that 307 other members in this House are also pleased. If they are not pleased, I would suggest they might want to do a bit of reading on the history of constitutional autonomy, what it actually means and the implications if legislation actually diminishes that.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have?

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

You have five minutes.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

I have five minutes. It will be quite difficult for me to cram all of my--

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

I bet you can do it in two minutes.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

The President of the Treasury Board is too kind and too flattering, but I am sure that as he gets to know me better he will understand that I always have thoughts and they are usually quite well founded on a variety of issues.

In this case, I simply wish to share as many of my thoughts as I can as they pertain to Bill C-2 at report stage because, after all, that is what we are here to discuss this evening.

I would like to come back to the issue of the parliamentary constitutional autonomy of the House and its members. For those members, both on the committee who actually voted on the amendments that the Liberals had brought forth, and those members who did not have the privilege of sitting on the special legislative committee that dealt with Bill C-2 and who do not understand what is so important about that, I would strongly encourage them to call our parliamentary counsel and law clerk, Rob Walsh, and his able staff. They could probably quite easily, off the tops of their heads, give an entire course on the issue and why it was so important to protect. If there is one thing that we have done right with Bill C-2, that is definitely one.

We also did a couple of other things right, contrary to the Prime Minister's pique when his nomination of Mr. Gwyn Morgan to what was going to become the public appointments commission was not approved by the committee. In his childish pique, which is unfortunate to mention, but it really was, the Prime Minister said that in that case he would not be nominating anyone else.

Luckily, the committee, in its wisdom, thought that it was important to actually ensure that the public appointments commission existed, that there was a process for appointment, and that the actual mandate and authority of that public appointments commission was clarified through the statutes. Therefore, amendments, some of which came from the Liberals and others from the other parties in opposition, the NDP, actually went forth.

I hope that we will be successful in having those amendments remain in Bill C-2. When Bill C-2 ultimately goes to the Senate, is carried at third reading, receives royal assent and comes into force, the Prime Minister at that time, whomsoever he or she may be, as I do not take that as a foregone conclusion, in his or her wisdom, will make appointments to the public appointments commission and will ensure that there is that kind of independent oversight when it comes to political appointments.

It was not always pleasant working on the committee. Contrary to what some in the House have said, there were many witnesses who stated that they were not pleased with the limited time they were provided to prepare for their appearance and the amount of time they were provided for their actual appearance. They indeed expressed to the committee verbally and in some cases in writing a desire to come back to appear a second time. Unfortunately, that was not the will of the majority of the committee, although it was the will of the Liberal members.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask my hon. colleague if I could bring her a cup of tea or coffee or if there was any cleaning or light housekeeping that I might be able to do for her? Seeing as she thinks I am a busboy, perhaps I could be of some service to her in the context as a member of the House, but I do not see her taking me up on that offer.

I will however speak about some of the comments she made. Most of what she said is in fact accurate about her recollection of how the committee developed amendments. We are particularly proud that the public appointments commission has not only been reinserted into the bill and survived the government's intentions, but in fact was expanded, broadened, and strengthened to where it is a true comprehensive regime that should result in an end to patronage as we know it today.

One of the biggest irritants to Canadians, other than out and out corruption I suppose, was this feeling that political patronage appointments were used to reward cronies in Ottawa. Let us face it, that has been the past practice for the better part of a hundred years. But just because it is a tradition does not mean it should be maintained. Perhaps we can announce an end to an era with the passage of this clause in this bill.

I would say that even if it were the only clause in Bill C-2, it would be worthy of our support because it is a fundamental sea change. It is a cultural shift because not only did previous governments, and I will not say only the past Liberal government, used to reward their cronies and their political friends through patronage appointments but they also used the appointments process to impregnate agencies and institutions in the public service with like-minded people, with people of their political stripe. It gave them eternal life because even after they were unelected as a government, they would live on and their ideology would live on in those agencies and institutions.

If nothing else, I think my colleague would agree. I enjoyed working with her on this committee. I will be the first to say I admire her and have a great deal of respect for the contributions she made to the committee, but she will have to admit that this is worthy of celebration. This should not be just a sort of backhanded recognition that we did something at the committee of worth. We did something great at that committee with the public appointments commission and I was proud to be the one who moved the amendment.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I hope that the member for Winnipeg Centre did not think that when I referred to his service to the Conservatives as that of a busboy that I meant it as an insult. We had a conversation outside of the House and I made it very clear that I have a high regard for busboys. Second, he made an attempt to create a difference in stating that he was just a carpenter and I was a high powered lawyer.

First, I am not a high powered lawyer. Second, I come from a working class background. My father was a porter on the train. Third, I myself was working class in my professional life. When I did my law degree, I worked full time as a coder. I was unionized with CUPW at Canada Post and worked full time as I studied full time. I would not in any way wish to cast aspersions on his socio-economic background prior to coming into politics because I shared a lot of it and I am quite proud of that.

To come to the achievements of the committee regarding the question of the public appointments commission, as the member for Winnipeg Centre stated, one area where the three opposition parties came together, were like-minded, were in agreement, and as a result were able to amend Bill C-2 to bring it back and put it in a form that, if it gets all the way through Parliament, will create an independent system that is merit-based.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some interesting discussion about the motions in Group No. 2.

At the start of the debate on Group No. 1 there were suggestions that perhaps the bill was hurried in committee. Some of the witnesses had indicated that there was not enough time. I think we can see that some of the items in Group Nos. 1 and 2 are showing evidence of sloppiness and a little bit of a lack of due diligence and care.

The one motion that was put in by the member who just spoke has to do with adding the words “wholly owned” because the bill was referring to crown corporations. Purolator is not a crown corporation. It is a wholly owned operation. It is a small item.

There is another item there. I think it is in Motion No. 21. If there is a change in the mandate of the Canadian Wheat Board, the bill presently says “the minister will do a review as to the propriety of the change”. We have a motion before the House for an extensive debate to change the word “will” to “shall”. We have to ask the question, why?

A number of members have taken the offer, as it were, of the Chair that notwithstanding, we may be talking on a particular group of motions but that it is appropriate to talk generally about the bill as a whole. I wanted to make a couple of comments about the bill as a whole because I may not get another chance to speak at report stage of the bill.

One of the things I wanted to raise was Bill C-11, known as the whistleblower bill. That bill goes back two Parliaments. It has had a couple of iterations. In the last Parliament, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates virtually spent the entire Parliament working on that bill. In fact, through the good work of all the members of the committee from all parties, there was a very good start to the bill.

I think it has already been acknowledged that no bill will be perfect. However, it is a good starting point. We feel comfortable that we have responded to the witnesses, as well as to the wishes of the various parties.

Bill C-11 received a third reading vote with the support of all parties in the House. It also received royal assent. That did not occur until about the second last day of the last Parliament. That meant that the bill was not proclaimed. It was law, but it was not in force is basically what that means.

We have Bill C-2 come forward and it has been described as dealing with the whole blanket of ethical issues. For example, it is dealing with whistleblowers, but not in the sense that it is doing anything in the first instance. In fact, the changes or the items in Bill C-2 that are seen are actually amendments to Bill C-11.

That means that we will see Bill C-11 from the Liberal government in the last Parliament. With the support of all other parties, it is going to come into force and law in Canada. It will then be amended for a number of the points that were raised by committee members and by this legislation. I do not see substantive changes. It seems that the committee has done its job to again ensure that legislation continues to get the scrutiny that it needs so that it continues to be up-to-date and takes into account all of the values and principles that should be incorporated in the blanket of Bill C-2.

I am very pleased that we are going to have Bill C-11 finally proclaimed. The bill will then be a law of Canada, and that it will be amended by some of the items in Bill C-2.

One of the other items I wanted to raise is the Access to Information Act. I am very much a big fan of the Information Commissioner. He is someone that I have worked with for many years. He has been in this role even more than his prescribed term. His term was extended by the House.

However, yesterday in the editorial pages there was further commentary on the concerns that have been raised about how the commissioner does not feel that the changes being contemplated, as well as Bill C-2 generally, are going to promote the kind of openness and transparency that we sought to achieve. That gives me some concern. I think it is a signal to all hon. members to look again at the changes to the Access to Information Act that the Information Commissioner was proposing.

Finally, with regard to political donations, I am going to get into that, but I wanted to put a couple of thoughts on the record. Having looked at Bill C-2 and also at the legislative summary provided by the Library of Parliament, I note that there are certain provisions within the act that are in force on receiving royal assent and being proclaimed. There are some that would be delayed for some six months. There are others that are going to be in force on the day on which royal assent is given and the bill is proclaimed.

The donations item is one of those items. This is going to finally eliminate the $1,000 donations that can be made by corporations and unions. As an individual candidate, I am sorry that is going to be taken away, because it will take away the ability to accept donations from small businesses within the community that want to support people who are doing good things for the community. It will take that opportunity away from those small businesses, but if that is what it takes, I am prepared to live with it.

Then there is the fact of reducing the amount that an individual can give from the current $5,000 limit to $1,000. For an ordinary individual, $1,000 is a lot of money. I certainly understand that, but as a member of Parliament, for instance, I attend at least two conventions a year, if not three, which cost anywhere from $150 up. I believe the leadership convention is going to be some $900. Not all of the fees for those conventions are tax receiptable; the costs have to be deducted. Of that $950, if that is what it turns out to be, a substantial amount will be real costs that are not going to be receiptable. I think we can make it.

The problem is that there are no transitional provisions in the bill with regard to whether the rules of the bill specify that those changes are going to be in force on the day that this bill receives royal assent. It is not likely to be on January 1 of a new calendar year. It is going to be in the middle of a year, and it could be the middle of this year, but a lot of Canadians who have made donations under the laws of Canada have exceeded what this bill proposes.

We have heard reports now from the Chief Electoral Officer that with the way in which the bill is presently crafted, in his view as the officer of Parliament who has to enforce the Canada Elections Act, there in fact will be a limit imposed for 2006 of $1,000. Many people contributed to the last election campaign in January 2006, plus there are people who will be going to conventions or who want to support a candidate in a nomination or give to their local riding associations, because it is important for riding associations to have the resources to do their work.

This is going to be very problematic. It is going to mean that an awful lot of businesses and individuals, if the Chief Electoral Officer is correct, are going to have to return moneys. It is going to be a bit of a mess. It is going to make us look bad. I know the committee has had some discussions on this. I hope that more hon. members will raise some of these issues. The most appropriate approach to this would be to amend the report stage motion so as to prescribe that the enforced date of the changes to political donations will be made for January 1 of the next calendar year, which allows for proper transition.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the speech that the member for Mississauga South made. He seems quite interested in this bill since he spoke on several occasions today. I commend him for doing so, even though—and this is not an accusation—he was not present regularly at the committee. He followed, studied and analyzed BIll C-2, and he has a very good understanding of it.

We heard throughout the day that it was urgent to work on and to pass Bill C-2, because we wanted to eliminate corruption. It is important to remind the House that the vast majority of public servants are very honest men and women and that we are ensuring, through this bill, that they are provided with a safety net.

Why does the member for Mississauga South think that the government refused to immediately implement Bill C-11 that had received royal assent and that provided this safety net for public servants, which would have allowed us to have a more serious study of Bill C-2?

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the government will have to answer that question directly. I cannot speculate.

I would suggest, in the spirit of transparency and openness and getting on with this process, that to proclaim Bill C-11 now would at least allow the process of the recruitment of the public service integrity officer to commence. The member is well aware of the lengthy time it is going to take to do publication nationally, to probably get a national search firm to do pre-screening and to start the process that is necessary when a bunch of officers are recruited. At the government operations and estimates committee, we went through this process extensively.

I have one final comment on the point about the spirit of corruption. I said earlier in debate that the party in power is the government, but government as defined is not just the members of Parliament who sit on that side of the House. Government also includes everyone who works for it. The buck stops there. The government is responsible for the wrongdoing of everybody who happens to work in the public service. A government could legitimately be accused of being corrupt if someone did something wrong.

There is a process going on. It is up to the courts to determine who is guilty of an offence. There have been three cases now. Two involved two ad agency executives who have been found guilty and have been prescribed jail sentences. The third case involves Mr. Guité, a public servant who was hired at the time of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He was found guilty and has been sentenced to three and a half years. Mr. Guité has an appeal process going forward.

We are also aware that other matters have been referred to the RCMP. Further charges may be laid. We do not know that yet. The Auditor General told Canadians that Mr. Guité, in her opinion, broke every rule in the book. It appears that the courts have agreed, as did Justice Gomery. Mr. Guité has been found guilty. It appears he will be punished, as should anyone who broke any law of Canada in regard to the sponsorship program. Individuals who break our laws should face the full force of the law.