Federal Accountability Act

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

This bill is from the 39th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in October 2007.

Sponsor

John Baird  Conservative

Status

This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.

Summary

This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.

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 substantiveread more

Elsewhere

All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.

Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-2s:

C-2 (2021) Law An Act to provide further support in response to COVID-19
C-2 (2020) COVID-19 Economic Recovery Act
C-2 (2019) Law Appropriation Act No. 3, 2019-20
C-2 (2015) Law An Act to amend the Income Tax Act
C-2 (2013) Law Respect for Communities Act
C-2 (2011) Law Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act

Votes

Nov. 21, 2006 Passed That the motion be amended by: 1. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Disagrees with” the following: 67; 2. Inserting in the paragraph commencing with the words “Agrees with”, immediately after the number “158”, the following: “and 67”; and 3. Deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “Senate amendment 67”;.
Nov. 21, 2006 Failed That the motion be amended by: 1. Deleting from the paragraph commencing with the words “Disagrees with” the following: 118, 119; 2. Inserting in the paragraph commencing with the words “Agrees with”, immediately after the number “158”, the following: “and 118 and 119”; and 3. Deleting the paragraph commencing with the words “Amendment 118” and the paragraph commencing with the words “Amendment 119”..
Nov. 21, 2006 Passed That the amendment be amended by deleting paragraphs “A” and “B”.
June 21, 2006 Passed That Bill C-2, in Clause 315, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 25 on page 207 with the following: “provincial government or a municipality, or any of their agencies; ( c.1) a band, as defined in subsection 2(1) of the Indian Act, or an aboriginal body that is party to a self-government agreement given effect by an Act of Parliament, or any of their agencies;”
June 21, 2006 Passed That Bill C-2, in Clause 315, be amended by adding after line 27 on page 206 the following: “( e) requiring the public disclosure of basic information on contracts entered into with Her Majesty for the performance of work, the supply of goods or the rendering of services and having a value in excess of $10,000.”
June 21, 2006 Failed That Bill C-2, in Clause 123, be amended by (a) replacing line 43 on page 105 to line 6 on page 106 with the following: “selected candidate is referred for consideration to a committee of the House of Commons designated or established for that purpose. (5) After the committee considers the question, the Attorney General may recommend to the Governor in Council that the selected candidate be appointed as Director, or may refer to the committee the appoint-” (b) replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 106 with the following: “for cause. The Director”
June 21, 2006 Failed That Bill C-2 be amended by deleting Clause 165.1.
June 21, 2006 Passed That Bill C-2, in Clause 146, be amended by replacing lines 3 to 31 on page 118 with the following: “16.1 (1) The following heads of government institutions shall refuse to disclose any record requested under this Act that contains information that was obtained or created by them or on their behalf in the course of an investigation, examination or audit conducted by them or under their authority: ( a) the Auditor General of Canada; ( b) the Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada; ( c) the Information Commissioner; and ( d) the Privacy Commissioner.(2) However, the head of a government institution referred to in paragraph (1)( c) or (d) shall not refuse under subsection (1) to disclose any record that contains information that was created by or on behalf of the head of the government institution in the course of an investigation or audit conducted by or under the authority of the head of the government institution once the investigation or audit and all related proceedings, if any, are finally concluded.”
June 21, 2006 Passed That Bill C-2, in Clause 78, be amended by deleting lines 4 to 8 on page 80.
June 21, 2006 Passed That Bill C-2, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 1 on page 33 with the following: “(2) Subject to subsection 6(2) and sections 21 and 30, nothing in this Act abrogates or dero-”
June 21, 2006 Passed That Bill C-2, in Clause 2, be amended by replacing line 12 on page 6 with the following: “(2) No minister of the Crown, minister of state or parliamentary secretary shall, in his or her capacity as a member of the Senate or the House of Commons, debate or vote on a question that would place him or her in a conflict of interest.”

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

June 22nd, 2006 / 12:10 a.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I suppose it depends on how one defines innovation.

We could talk about crown corporations and how the member's government used crown corporations as political patronage paybacks.

I would point quite sincerely to the situation with David Dingwall where basically there was a circumvention of the Industry Canada rules with regard to payments for programs and services that were routed back to him. It led to a great controversy about our crown corporations.

Canadians understand that this law will bring greater accountability. If there is going to be a greater demand on the public service with regard to the bill, then it is the duty of Parliament to ensure that our public servants are supported quite strongly in carrying out this law.

The New Democrats have no problem with a strong and accountable public service if we provide fair rules. That is one of the reasons we believe in strong whistleblower legislation. One of the things missing in the bill is that whistleblowers who are students and researchers are not included. We would like to include them in the bill. It is a shame that the other parties did not agree with that.

We believe that the public service will be better served by the bill. It will also be less abused, because it seems that flunkies or bureaucrats related to the sponsorship scandal have been the problem, but we know there are political connections in this file. The bill is an improvement.

I do not disregard the member's comments with regard to adding other levels of work on our public service. It is an important point that probably should be talked about more.

It is incumbent upon us to provide those appropriate supports. If there is a failing of that system, once again it will be Parliament that will have to provide the necessary means to correct it. I believe that Canadians in general view this as accountability in Parliament and in the whole system. We have to deliver on that in terms of real results and not just pass an act that does not provide a fair system for all.

As spoken

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

June 22nd, 2006 / 12:10 a.m.

NDP

Alexa McDonough NDP Halifax, NS

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the comments of the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I am not sure whether he includes in his condemnation of the act the stricter rules to stop the revolving door between lobbyists and senior levels of government as another layer of requirements that somehow will overburden the bureaucracy and make it unworkable.

Perhaps the member for Windsor West could elaborate briefly on why stricter rules to stop the revolving door between lobbyists and senior levels of government are important to bring to the light of day what is actually going on. How is the public interest actually harmed by that kind of revolving door that blurs the lines of accountability?

As spoken

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

June 22nd, 2006 / 12:10 a.m.

NDP

Brian Masse NDP Windsor West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I will summarize very quickly. The member for Winnipeg Centre said this best in committee. He said the government made the commitment that it would end influence peddling and it would put an end to the revolving door that so angered Canadians in the previous government.

The transition team was not just ordering furniture for the new government and organizing office space, it was hiring the most powerful people in the country. It is a shame that the government has not lived up to its expectation on this and has now exempted the war room people. It is appropriate to end this debate with comments made by the member for Winnipeg Centre.

As spoken

Federal Accountability ActGovernment Orders

June 22nd, 2006 / 12:10 a.m.

NDP

Le vice-président NDP Bill Blaikie

It being 12:24 a.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, June 20, 2006, Bill C-2 is deemed read a third time and passed on division.

(Bill read the third time and passed on division)

Translated