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

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have already indicated that I will review what was said in the House and come back after reviewing Hansard. So anything other than that is not a point of order at this time.

We will continue with the member from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I will not argue with you, Mr. Speaker.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, given that I have very little time, I cannot address every aspect of this very important bill. I will simply mention the highlights, particularly the part of this bill that most interests me, that is, how we treat public servants who denounce corruption.

The accountability act will clean up the way political parties are financed. Donations from corporations, unions and organizations will be banned. Individuals will be allowed to donate no more than $1,000 each to parties, candidates, riding associations, and leadership candidates.

This will make party financing more transparent and level the playing field for all Canadians who wish to donate to political campaigns. Unions, businesses and the very wealthy will no longer be able to decide which party has a richer war chest.

Even more important, these changes will prevent scandals like the Liberal sponsorship scam from being repeated. No governing party will ever again be able to give taxpayers' money to its friends in the business world in return for kickbacks in the form of political donations.

The accountability act will also entrench the conflict of interest code for public office holders in law and create a new conflict of interest and ethics commissioner to administer those rules. The Prime Minister will no longer be able to overrule the Ethics Commissioner. Ministers will have to put their interests in truly blind trusts. We will no longer see a situation in which a Prime Minister or a finance minister can discuss his shipping business with the people managing it, or sell it to his sons and pretend to be uninvolved.

This bill will enable ordinary citizens to participate directly in the accountability process. Under the act, the public can provide information to the Ethics Commissioner through members of Parliament.

The accountability act will prevent ministers and their aides from leaving government to immediately take lucrative jobs lobbying their friends who remain in government. It will require lobbyists to register their lobbying efforts and prevent them from collecting so-called success fees.

This bill will help Parliament scrutinize the government's financial management and budgeting process by establishing a budget authority to provide independent financial analysis, information and advice to parliamentarians. Canadians have seen in recent years how governments can hand out money with one hand while picking taxpayers' pockets with the other. Canadians are fed up with their money being concealed and shuffled around in a political shell game.

The budget authority will also have a mandate to estimate the financial costs of proposed programs. Maybe if we had had an independent body like that a few years ago, the true costs of the Liberal rifle registry would have been known ahead of time and the whole fiasco would have been prevented. Instead the registry went ahead and ended up costing a thousand times what it was supposed to cost. This must never happen again.

The accountability act will also give Parliament a voice in the appointment of officers of Parliament. We will thereby put an end to preferential treatment for friends of ministers in the public service hiring process.

The bill would also allow the Auditor General to audit organizations and individuals who receive taxpayer money. Wherever public money ends up, the Auditor General would be able to follow it and shine a light on how it is being used. Gone are the days when the hard-earned money of Canadian taxpayers was simply syphoned off into oblivion, never to be heard from again.

The accountability act would also strengthen the audit functions within departments and create tougher penalties for fraud involving public funds. At the same time, it would create a director of public prosecution, independent from the political system, who would decide when to prosecute criminal offences under federal laws.

Canadians were disgusted with the lack of charges laid and the lenient penalties handed out after untold millions of dollars of their money were stolen through the Liberal sponsorship program.

There are many other concrete ways the bill would keep governments honest and transparent but I want to finish off by focusing on one area with which I have been deeply involved: assisting and protecting public servants who have the courage to come forward to expose corruption.

I was sickened to see the way the previous government treated our public servants. As a retired public servant myself, I know very well the depth of professionalism and the quality of people in Canada's public service. I was shocked to hear the Liberals repeatedly blame public servants for the massive kickback scheme that filled the Liberal Party's coffers with taxpayer money. I was heartbroken by the way the Liberals repeatedly and systematically ruined public servants who had the courage and the integrity to blow the whistle on corruption and abuse within their departments.

The bill the Liberals introduced in the last Parliament to address this issue, Bill C-11, offered nothing for public servants. It contained no independent process to receive and investigate whistleblower complaints, no penalties for punishing whistleblowers and no new process for whistleblowers to report reprisals. In fact, it actually added insult to injury by shielding internal audit information from access to information laws and allowed the Prime Minister and his cabinet to arbitrarily exempt government bodies from its provisions.

The Conservative members in the government operations committee, sometimes with the support of the NDP, fought tooth and nail to address some of the shortcomings in the Liberal bill. At the end of that long battle the House passed a bill that was still very weak but at least we could say that it was slightly better than the status quo.

Now that we are in government, we Conservatives will provide strong, meaningful support to our honest and courageous public servants. Never again will public servants like Allan Cutler have their careers cut short and their lives derailed because they exposed corruption and saved taxpayers money.

The accountability act is the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history. For example, the bill would bring in a corruption watchdog to protect whistleblowers against bullies; end the revolving door between lobby firms and ministers' offices; give the Auditor General the power to shine light in every dark corner in her hunt for waste and theft; and ban big money and corporate cash from political campaigns. By moving from a culture of entitlement to a culture of accountability, we are fixing the system for all Canadians.

I recognize the importance of allowing Parliament to fully study and debate all bills, and I realize that the bill is a very thick document, but I hope my hon. colleagues opposite will treat the accountability act with the urgency it deserves so we can get on with restoring the public trust that has been so badly damaged by the scandals of the past government.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member made a statement that the bill would provide a protection watchdog for whistleblowers.

In the last Parliament, over a one year period the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates dealt with Bill C-11. The hon. member will know that the bill was referred to the committee before second reading, which gave the committee full latitude to do a very good job and make it an effective bill. Indeed, the committee did a very good job and actually made very substantial amendments, almost re-wrote the entire bill. The bill was passed unanimously at the committee. It came to the House and it passed with the support of all parties at all stages and was given royal assent.

It is law in Canada but it is not in force today and the reason it is not in force today is because it has not been proclaimed. It is that act, the Liberal bill on whistleblowers, that is providing the protection for whistleblowers. This particular bill, Bill C-2, makes some minor amendments to our bill but does not, in fact, provide for their protection. I just wanted to provide that clarification.

My question is with regard to the thickness of the act. Does the member believe that we should ram this bill through by the summer or should we take the time that our committee did in the last Parliament to ensure we make good decisions?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the member calls Bill C-11 a Liberal bill. At committee we received a bill that was, quite frankly, absolutely unacceptable. There was great discussion as to whether we should tear the damn thing up and start over or whether we could work with it. Quite frankly, it was touch and go as to what we would do. We, as a committee, decided that maybe we could work with it because we needed whistleblower legislation.

Thanks to the Conservatives and many members in this House, we worked and finally came up with, certainly not a perfect bill but a bill that gave some protection to whistleblowers. We decided as a committee that we would bring that bill back to Parliament.

The new bill we are introducing really does the job that the Conservatives wanted all along and I am glad I am part of the government that is doing that.

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me the opportunity to ask a question of my colleague across the way, whom I thank for his statement.

I would like to address certain points. My colleague mentioned that government must be accountable, and that is certainly important. We must, however, be aware of certain realities. After ministers leave politics, they cannot become lobbyists, but is it acceptable for lobbyists to become ministers? We must ask ourselves this question, which is directly related to accountability.

And now for the question for my hon. colleague. Many promises are made during election campaigns. Does he think that a government that fails to keep all of the promises made by its elected members or candidates during the last election campaign is an accountable government?

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is interesting that he asked about ministers. How many ministers during an 18 month period in the last Parliament had to resign because of the scandal that surrounded the last Parliament? Those were ministers of the Crown who had to resign in shame. We had strippergate and all kinds of gates but he truth of the matter is that we finally have a government that will clean house. The last two members who asked those two questions sat on the committee and protected the previous corrupt government that had spent 13 years getting us down to the depths where we were.

After 13 years of corruption, we finally have a government that will be transparent and will give Canadians value for dollar.

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by saying that I do support the spirit of the proposed accountability act because accountability is our obligation as parliamentarians and the very least that Canadians should receive from those entrusted to guide this nation and to serve its people.

We heard a great deal about the sponsorship scandal not just today but it has dominated debate during the last two federal elections. It was a stain on our nation. It demeaned our democracy, this House and the work of the members who serve our many and diverse communities.

As I said, I do support the spirit of the bill but I do have some concerns. Like any bill cobbled together rather hastily, Bill C-2 has many flaws. My concern is that in its 270 pages it may prove to be more ponderous than enlightening and could collapse in on itself. Therefore I believe that it needs some refinements for the sake of ensuring that it does precisely what it was intended to do and that is to bring back accountability and integrity. We in the New Democratic Party would like to work with all members in the House to effect those needed changes.

I am going to refer shamelessly to the work of my former colleague, Mr. Ed Broadbent, the former member for Ottawa Centre, because he did put together a very comprehensive package to address the kinds of problems that we have seen in the House over the last few years.

I would like to begin with financing. Bill C-2 does make some important changes to the financing laws. These changes have been around for a little while. Some were brought in by the previous government. However, unlike the previous government, we see some clear restrictions: lowering the contribution limits locally to $1,000, an additional $1,000 nationally and an additional $1,000 for leadership races. That is very important.

I would like to comment specifically on leadership races because that is missing from this bill. If we allow those who have financial wherewithal to take control and be the only ones who can run for the leaders of this nation, then we are buying into the kind of elitism that we see in American races. I believe that wealth should not be the basis upon which one seeks leadership. I would like to see a lowering of limits or a very clear limit set on leadership races so we can be assured that we have people with the genuine skills and determination to be our leaders rather than those with deep pockets.

I am also pleased to see the elimination of corporate and union contributions. We in the New Democratic Party certainly support that move. We believe it will provide a measure of fairness. I have run many times, both provincially and federally, and it was always a problem. My opponents were constantly able to draw on corporate resources that were well beyond anything that my constituents and my supporters could ever provide. This kind of limit is very important.

I also like the fact that loopholes have been closed in terms of trust funds. Unfortunately, much of this is too little too late. I think the ship has sailed on trust funds and I rather strongly suspect that those trust funds are now in the hands of riding associations. It would have been nice to have seen this much sooner.

One of the things that I do have some real concerns with is the elimination of cash contributions over $20. I would not want members to think that supporters in London--Fanshawe were so well-heeled that they were coming out with lots of cash. In fact, most contributions were made by cheque and they were modest but heartfelt contributions, and I appreciated every one of them.

A lot of seniors in my riding do not deal with credit cards, and money orders just add a lot of extra expense. They are hard-working people who deal in cash. Credit is an alien concept to them. I would not want them to be undermined in any way by this limitation.

I have a story about one supporter of mine, a wonderful man. He had not been on employment insurance. He had worked many years and contributed to the fund, but had never qualified because his work was sporadic. It was very important to him to get the kind of representation that would address this inequity. We know this inequity has been endemic in Canada for a very long time. He walked several miles from his home to my campaign office with $25. He wanted to show how important his participation was and how much he believed in fairness and in an opportunity to have his voice heard. For him, this was a great sacrifice.

Unfortunately, if we start to eliminate those kinds of very small contributions, we are going to lose out a great deal in being able to extend and allow our supporters of modest means to contribute and to feel positive about that.

I also want to talk about fixed election dates. It is very important that we do this. Mr. Broadbent was very clear about that. He said that prime ministers in governing parties should lose their control over when we voted, that the date should be every four years unless the government failed because of a confidence vote. This would add fairness because a prime minister should not be able to manipulate the vote. A prime minister should not be able to look at polling and decide not to call an election because things are not looking good. There should be a consistency to our elections for the various houses in this nation, and fixed election dates would go a long way in terms of doing that.

I would also like to talk a little today about electoral reform. This is sadly missing from the bill, and I think we suffer for that. As a community and as a Parliament, we do not have the kind of representation we should have in terms of our constituents and of the people who should be here in the House.

A few weeks ago, the women in our NDP caucus, and there are 12 or 41% of our caucus is female, of which we are very proud, challenged the other parties in regard to proportional representation and effecting the kind of electoral change that would allow people from visible minorities, from the disabled community and from first nations and women to participate fully in the life of our nation.

I throw this challenge out once again to the members of the House to look very closely at electoral reform, to bring in proportional representation, to add it to the bill and make it better in regard to the electorate's wishes being clearly reflected and respected in the representation of Parliament.

Third, I want to speak very briefly about the lack of floor-crossing legislation. I guess we could call it the Vancouver Kingsway hangover. I make reference to the donor who walked all those miles to my campaign office in order to bring his $25 contribution. Imagine if his member had, after a few weeks or months, seen fit to cross the floor--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Oakville.

[Bonnie Brown, Liberal, Oakville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest, and I cannot say I disagreed with much that the new member for London—Fanshawe brought forward. I can tell by her speech that she is dedicated to those who are less well off in her riding. It is a good lesson for all of us. I can also tell that she is dedicated to accountability. Being a member of that party, I can also guess that she is pretty dedicated to the workers of our country, including public servants. That particular point was made by the previous speaker about dedication to public service.

Considering the fact that the chief economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank has suggested there will be cuts of $22.5 billion in the budget, would she agree with me that it would also be suitable, as a part of accountability, which the new government is espousing and claiming to achieve, that when the Minister of Finance presents his budget, he bring forward the list of budget lines he is cutting to achieve that $22.5 billion?

If the member really believes in care for the more vulnerable people, I am sure she would be very interested to know what cuts are going to be made so she can warn her constituents about it. Does she not agree that it is part of accountability in the broader sense?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, absolutely. We in the New Democratic Party are very concerned about what we may see in budget cuts. Ultimately, the people who work in our civil service, very dedicated and hard-working people, have talked to me about their concerns in regard to the lack of services.

In specific regard to that, one example is the services offered by Revenue Canada to seniors who go in to talk about their tax returns. The problem is that these civil servants are being instructed to wait 20 minutes between each customer. If seniors do not understand that they need to have an appointment, they may arrive at 9 o'clock in the morning without an appointment. Then they have to set up one up, they are fourth or fifth in line and they have to wait for several hours before they can see someone who can help them with their tax returns. The rationale is that--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Mississauga South.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the last couple of days members have been having a conversation among themselves about the issue of fixed election dates. I know the NDP is very much in support of establishing fixed election dates. Maybe to advance the dialogue among members, would the member care to share some of the reasons why she believes fixed election dates would be a good idea?

[Irene Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is very important for the citizens of the country to be able to rely on fixed election dates. It gives us a sense of when elections will happen. It is a commitment of Parliament to say that it will work for a four year period and not play games.

Unfortunately, we saw this in Ontario with a Liberal government in 1990. The premier of the day thought he could avoid the recession and played around with the timing of the election. He lost that election, but it was clearly a very cynical kind of behaviour. We have seen enough cynicism in Parliaments and legislatures across the country. We need to be very clear with people who are depending on clarity. We need this manipulation to go away. Fixed election dates would do a great deal in terms of remedying that.

[Leon Benoit, Conservative, Vegreville—Wainwright, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this extremely important debate on probably the most important piece of legislation that Parliament has seen in the 13 years I have been here. I think, undeniably, that Canadians feel there is a great need for this federal accountability act.

We have had three days of debate now at second reading and a couple of things are clear just from listening to that debate.

We hear some productive debate by the members of the New Democratic Party on the issue and also some petty criticisms. Overall, they have taken part and have offered some ideas. I do appreciate that.

From the Conservative Party, we have heard full support for the federal accountability act. It is our legislation, legislation that the country wants. It is for that reason that we are going to work hard to get the legislation through the House.

From members of Liberal Party though, we have heard quite a different story. What I have heard is that they really do not want this legislation to pass. That is the last thing they want. They do not want accountability. On the surface, that would be surprising. However, when we think about it, it should be no surprise at all. Why was it necessary for us to bring this legislation before Parliament? Because we had 13 years of a Liberal government that was laden with corruption and the lack of accountability that Canadians simply did not accept.

We heard Mr. Dingwall, a former Liberal minister, at committee. I chaired the government operations and estimates committee in the last Parliament. He said that he was entitled to his entitlements. That seems to be the attitude on the part of the members of former governing Liberal Party, that they are entitled to their entitlements and they do not want anything to happen that causes them to lose those entitlements should they ever get back into government. We have heard resistance to the legislation from them, and I guess it should no surprised.

The reason this legislation is necessary is not only that over the past 13 years we have had government that has been completely unacceptable and unaccountable, with a culture of entitlement and corruption. It is necessary because we saw this creep in from time to time from other governments, particularly when governments had been in power for a long time. That tends to happen. This legislation is critical to ensure that it is very difficult for that to happen again.

In the end I would concede that the only way we are going to have ethical government is with ethical people in government. However, Bill C-2 will go a long way to ensuring that governments in the future will be accountable, no matter what party is governing. We are putting in place mechanisms that will make it extremely difficult for them not to be accountable, and that is important.

I want to talk briefly about one aspect of the legislation, which is whistleblower component of the bill. This is a broad bill and the whistleblower component is only one part of it, but it is a very important part.

We saw in the last two Parliaments attempts by the Liberal Party to have whistleblower legislation passed, which would probably have been a step backwards. I was on the government operations and estimates committee when the former president of the Treasury Board, Reg Alcock, the member from Winnipeg, who was defeated in the last election, chaired the committee. That was when the Liberal government brought forth its first attempt at whistleblower legislation. It was so bad that even Mr. Alcock said that it had to be rejected, that it would probably make things worse rather than better. Everybody on the committee said it was completely unacceptable and threw it back at the government.

In the last Parliament, which started in 2004, the government operations and estimates committee was again presented with a piece of legislation before second reading, Bill C-11, which was the government's next attempt at putting in place whistleblower legislation. That legislation was so bad--there were a few changes and improvements made--that the committee was ready to throw it back to the government and to say the government should do it over because it was a step backwards.

The government did come back with some concessions. It had refused, for example, to provide an independent office of Parliament to head up the whistleblower legislation, to be the body that whistleblowers could go to when they wanted to report wrongdoing in government or waste in government. The Liberals were proposing that the individual in the office in fact would be a member of government, so whistleblowers would not be going to an independent officer of Parliament. Instead, they would be going to someone who would answer directly to cabinet and government. Clearly that was not going to work.

The committee was ready to throw it back. Concessions were made. To make a long story short, after many months of members of all parties working together, we did pass through committee and through the House a piece of whistleblower legislation, Bill C-11, which was not the government's legislation at all. It was a brand new piece of legislation developed by the committee members working as Canadians expect them to work: working together to make things better.

Most of us acknowledge that the legislation was only a start. There were a lot of things that we had determined would be very helpful and would make Bill C-11 much better and stronger legislation if they were added. Really, that is exactly what the whistleblower component of Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, provides. It provides a series of changes that will take Bill C-11 as a start and make it powerful whistleblower legislation. I would suggest that it would probably be the best whistleblower legislation in the world. It would be extremely good.

The government is taking an active role in restoring the trust and confidence of Canadians in federal government institutions. That is important. Canadians have a right to expect the highest standard of ethical conduct on the part of public servants. We must provide the compelling evidence that a culture of integrity exists in the federal public service. Without a doubt, if these changes, the proposals we have in Bill C-2, are passed, then we will have that. We will have the world's strongest regime for the disclosure of wrongdoing.

We will be the only country in the world with an independent officer of Parliament dedicated to the issue, the only country with a strong legislative framework to protect whistleblowers, and the only country with an independent tribunal to order remedies. This is extremely important and is something that was absent from Bill C-11.

We will be the only country to have an independent body to provide remedies for reprisals and discipline of those who take reprisals. That is such a key point. If we have whistleblowers, who go out on a limb and put their careers on the line, afraid to come forth and report wrongdoing and inefficiency in government, then we have a piece of legislation that simply will not work.

When we dealt with Bill C-11, we had witnesses before our committee who had had their careers destroyed because they had done the right thing. They had become whistleblowers. They had reported wrongdoing inside government. They had their careers completely destroyed.

Our legislation, although I do not have time to get into the details, will truly protect whistleblowers so that in the future people within the federal service and people doing work with the federal government who see wrongdoing can come forth and report it and we can act upon it. It is such a powerful piece of legislation, such an important part of the federal accountability act that I am certain all parties in the House will support it. I welcome any questions.