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

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board for his hard work and the effort that he has put into the accountability act, ensuring we have good whistleblower protection. The accountability that Canadians are looking for is going to be brought into place and it is so desperately needed following the scandal we went through in the last number of years.

One thing my constituents ask me is whether our accountability act will ensure that something like the sponsorship program and the scandal that surrounded it will never happen again.

Could the parliamentary secretary to go into some detail about this and talk about how our bill, with the support of the members of the House of Commons, will bring about the accountability that Canadians so desperately need to ensure that a program like the sponsorship scandal can never be abused again?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be intellectually dishonest of me to say that one act of Parliament alone could permanently prevent any scandal from occurring in government. What I can say is that had the accountability act been in place when the Liberal ad scam occurred, it would have been caught much sooner and punished much more swiftly.

I will give some examples. Allan Cutler would have had the ability to go to an independent officer of Parliament and report the scandal, theft and fraud that was transpiring with the sponsorship program. That independent officer of Parliament would have been forced, within 60 days, to report that wrongdoing to Parliament, meaning the public would have known of the wrongdoing within 60 days of the commissioner confirming it. In other words, the public would have known many years before what kind of fraud the Liberal Party was carrying out.That fraud, therefore, could have been stopped in its tracks. All the advertising firms that got money after Allan Cutler had originally come forward internally, we might have been able to have stopped, saving hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars as a result.

This is the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history. I thank the member for all of his work in helping to bring it about.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations in doing an excellent job in your new role. I congratulate the parliamentary secretary for his promotion. He too has a good grasp and speaks very well. However, I was surprised when he said that the time for talk was over. This is the first morning of discussions on a huge bill, as he said a sweeping bill and one of the largest bills ever, which will have three readings of debate in the House of Commons and three readings of debate in the Senate, yet he says that the time for talk is over.

We just witnessed one of the most shameful things in recent memory in the House. I asked the NDP members to support aboriginal people and they refused. I gave them three choices to support the Kelowna accord, the residential school accord and a government to government relationship and there was absolute silence.

It is incomprehensible why they have abandoned their support for aboriginal people, social programs, the environment and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to support the government.

I have several positive questions for the parliamentary secretary.

I think the three parties have commented that they have problems with the fee to be paid to whistleblowers. Does the member have any comments on that?

I was upset about the member's comments related to the tax cuts. The Conservative government is actually increasing incomes taxes. It is reducing the GST, which will benefit very wealthy people, but is increasing, through income taxes, the taxes of low income and medium income wage earners.

I am glad he is the parliamentary secretary. Could he comment on the consultation with first nations people related to the item of the Auditor General?

Lastly, could he comment on how the Conservatives were such geniuses to get the NDP members to support their party and abandon the things that they normally fight for such as social programs, cutting greenhouse gases and aboriginal people?

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member poses a number of interesting, though not particularly congruent questions. I will respond to them, as best I can, one by one.

To begin with, he referred to a fee to be paid to whistleblowers. The fee proposed in the accountability act, for those who come forward and take courageous action to expose waste and corruption, is designed to recognize the enormous sacrifice that any whistleblower makes, regardless of what protections we put in place. An example of where a fee exists is with Crime Stoppers, which has awards for people who come forward and expose a crime leading to a conviction. There is nothing wrong with this principle. If members do not agree with it, they can easily amend it out at committee.

As for consultation, we consulted with all kinds of groups, groups that were never included before in discussions on accountability. We brought their views forward, and we have implemented them in this law.

I do not think we should be attacking members of other parties who have supported this act. They have stood forward and taken the courageous and bold step that we need this law passed into statutory law by this summer. I hope that member and his party will support the initiative.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Davenport.

I would also like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on achieving your exalted position and the manner in which you have been adjudicating our proceedings thus far.

I have a comment with respect to the parliamentary secretary's characterization of taxes. I guess he would fundamentally disagree with Edmund Burke who has said that taxes are the price we pay for our passage toward a better world.

However, the subject at hand is accountability. I noted that the parliamentary secretary did not get into the role that members of Parliament could play in terms of heightening accountability, and I will attempt to address those concepts in my comments.

I am pleased to rise today, as the associate critic for democratic reform, to speak on behalf of all Canadians on the issue of accountability in government. I say I speak on behalf of all Canadians because I am certain that there is not one member, regardless of party, opposition side or government side, who does not believe that we all share a moral and ethical responsibility to extract from every dollar of expenditure a dollar's worth of service and value for the Canadian taxpayer. That should go without saying.

My colleague, the critic for our party, has very capably outlined the challenges facing us as parliamentarians to complete the accountability loop that was begun by the previous government. In order to develop some context for our own discussions and those of other speakers, it might be helpful to reiterate what in fact was done as a result of the sordid litany of transgressions, both professional and political, that were investigated by Justice Gomery.

First, as has been mentioned by my colleague and as a result of testimony provided to both the public accounts committee and Judge Gomery, which exposed the weakness in both internal and external audits back as far as 1995, the Liberal government restored the comptroller general's functions for each department and instituted internal audit policies. The role of the comptroller general had in fact been taken out by a previous Liberal government. The order of checks and balances did not recognize any partisanship. If there were weaknesses and mistakes made, they were made equally by both those governments.

That was changed as a result of the experience in 1995 and 1996 of internal and external audits not being followed up. This is important because what occurred was the systemic breakdown in the architecture of checks and balances. This was followed up by the political exploitation of the contract and award system, which is well documented by Judge Gomery.

To be clear, this was perpetuated by a small number of individuals. As Judge Gomery stated, and I quote once again, as my colleague did:

Canadians should not forget that the vast majority of our public officials and politicians do their work honestly, diligently and effectively, and emerge from this Inquiry free of any blame.

The government's accountability legislation picks up in several other areas where the foundation for accountability was laid, such as the continuation of the reform of financing for political parties, strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner, making qualified government appointments and cleaning up government polling and advertising. All of these were works in progress and are worthy of support.

Other parts of the bill have implications that warrant further review and should be sent to committee for further deliberation. I speak of two recommendations that both appear to be unduly bureaucratic. In fact, they cloud the historic and well-tried traditions of our parliamentary and justice system in a manner that is contradictory to the objectives of the government.

I am referring to the government's recommendation to create a “director of public prosecutions”. That unnecessarily and even seriously collides with the responsibilities of the Attorney General and even by its definition and characterization implicates on the time-tested principle of natural justice. Those believing in natural justice and human rights and equality before the law should be concerned with respect to the creation of a director of public prosecutions.

The other recommendation that deserves the even-handed treatment of committee is the establishment of a parliamentary budget authority. While the reasons given are laudable, and I quote from the bill, to “ensure truth in budgeting” and “to provide objective analysis to members of Parliament and parliamentary committees concerning the state of the nation's finances, trends in the national economy, and the financial cost of proposals under consideration by either house”, the advantages in creating yet another level of fiscal bureaucracy must be measured against whether the oversight capacity of committees as recommended by Judge Gomery and the Auditor General are in fact being vigorously enhanced by this recommendation to create a parliamentary budget authority.

It is my opinion that members of Parliament cannot and should not delegate away their accountability to what is becoming an ever more complex and intricate array of bureaucratic watchdogs. I believe it was Winston Churchill who said, “Watchdogs? Why yes, but who will watch the dogs?”

I would like to close by reminding Parliament most humbly that there was another work in progress that at least to some extent implicated on those abuses that were uncovered by the Auditor General and Judge Gomery. I am referring to the existence of what was described as a democratic deficit, where it was suggested that parliamentarians were either deliberately shut out or naively shutting themselves out of the process of policy development, evaluation and accountability.

In my short time in the House I have witnessed the efforts of all parties to take back responsibilities from unelected mandarins, lobbyists and the like that had been delegated away. Just one example of this trend was the establishment of the estimates approval process through the standing committee structure. As chairman of the Standing Committee on the Environment and Sustainable Development, I also found myself along with members querying whether the committee was being provided with the necessary investigative tools to carry out this responsibility with the capacity to follow through.

Under the mantra of parliamentary accountability much has been, and through this bill will be, accomplished. Let me make this one observation for the consideration of all hon. members. Let us not in combating the aberration of deceit, corruption and maladministration, pervasively create a culture where we forget that our parliamentary system is the foundation upon which the political, social and economic landscape of our country has been built. By all means let us do all within our power to assure Canadians that those parliamentary institutions and values are dynamic, democratic and flexible enough to reflect and protect the public trust.

This piece of legislation, if addressed in both manner of process and substance as I have tried to outline today, will be yet another step in that direction of accountability that Canadians want to see us take. Most important, it will empower their elected representatives to deliver on their great expectation to protect the public trust.

[Nathan Cullen, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments on the tome that we are now debating. I would like him to explore a couple of places where I did not hear much commentary and that is with respect to access to information.

We spent time on the environment committee last year trying to understand the plans of the government of the day around climate change. We are unfortunately in the same scenario now. We are left with no plans whatsoever from the current government other than some George Bush inspired made in Canada plan.

When I look through this massive document with all sorts of opportunity and extensive consultation that the parliamentary secretary referred to, the access to information component of this proposal is so thin as to be insulting. Many of those groups that were consulted by the government have publicly declared since the issuance of this bill that the access to information is not substantive, is not substantial enough in order to find out the information that MPs need to do their work, that average citizens need to strengthen their requests for information from the government, and not receive those requests back as we did under his former government, unfortunately, with massive blackouts in the documents. There was a great inability to actually access the information required to make sound judgments about the way the government was heading.

Canadians need to know whether he and his party support the level and depth of access to information reforms that are listed here or not.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is no question there is a shortcoming with respect to access to information that is even more extreme when it is applied to committees and members of Parliament. In fact the only mechanism that members of Parliament through committee have is to petition for information, which is the same right that every individual, every taxpayer and every citizen in this country has. In a way it is a fundamental strength that we are all equals.

The point I was trying to make is that we in the House have information that may not be available to the public. We may have a hint of issues that are developing that we should not have to petition. We should be able to simply put it on the record and that information should be supplied to committee in an appropriate manner.

The problem we have is that process and that level of accountability will be delayed because the access to information portion of this legislation will be further referred to committee. My suggestion would be that we should focus on it. It is one way in terms of accountability that we can enable members of Parliament to deliver more on accountability to the taxpayers.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me thank the hon. member for his thoughtful comments and the tone in which he said them. I want to pose one question to him and to his party.

Some Liberal members have asked why this legislation does not cover MPs, or the staff of MPs, and MPs who were in opposition but are no longer members of the House. Obviously on the government side we see a distinction between those in cabinet and those who are not.

I want to ask the member to clarify whether he believes the accountability act measures should cover all members of this legislative body, whether it should cover all staffers or whether in fact he believes that it should be limited to those serving in a cabinet position and those in senior administrative positions. Does he think it should cover all the legislature or just the cabinet?

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a very simple answer. The distinction at the present time is that the executive authority has privileged information. If we were more democratic, that privileged information would be less privileged and more generic to the House and to the institutions and structures of this House. If that reform is implemented and that path is taken, then it would naturally follow that there would be no distinction between the executive and legislative parts of the House. The legislation should cover us all as members.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I rise to speak in the House today on the federal accountability act, I would like to begin by once again thanking the voters of my riding of Davenport. It is indeed a privilege and honour to continue to ensure that the people of Davenport have their voices heard in Ottawa.

Throughout the campaign, the people I met made it clear that their vision of the kind of Canada they wanted to live in was not the one being presented by the Conservative Party. What they did want was a country that is compassionate, inclusive, and one that affords equal opportunity to all Canadians. They want a vision for the young and the old that is both inspirational and motivating. It is a vision my constituents and I share and one that I am proud to promote in this House.

Canada is a great country rich in history. Canada's past is full of visionaries including Laurier, who in his day welcomed to Canada millions of southern and eastern Europeans. They did not speak our language nor comprehend our vast geography, but their contributions to our prosperity are still felt today. Their descendants continue to lead and build this great country. The same thing will happen with those who are new to Canada in our time.

Our first nations people also continue to contribute to the vibrancy of this great land. There are over 50 different languages spoken by native people, most of which are only spoken here in Canada.

Just a few weeks ago the government presented its Speech from the Throne. It is impossible to separate the blueprint of the government's agenda and its flip-flop appointments of recent days from the bill we are discussing here today.

The government's vision of the country is not one that is shared by the large urban centres across Canada. Voters in these cities chose not to elect Conservative members to this House. When we look at the government's agenda, we see a vision of the future that is quite frankly out of sync with the aspirations of most Canadians.

In the area of child care, for example, I believe public policy should support those who are most in need. There are families in this country that are struggling. The previous Liberal government was putting in place a national child care program. This program was about helping those most in need so that they could access affordable child care. The Conservative government's apparent decision to discontinue this initiative will not create more day care spaces where they are needed. It will not serve those who can least afford child care services.

It is remarkable that the Prime Minister and his colleagues across the floor would speak of their dedication to accountability and ethics when their record to date is so inconsistent with their actions since taking office, a staggering comment in view of the record of what is still a relatively young administration.

The Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Conservative caucus have made much about their proposed legislation in the federal accountability act. Indeed the Prime Minister while opposition leader stated last November that cleaning up the government begins at the top. It is really quite astounding how much has changed since those words were delivered last November.

First, who did not watch in disbelief at the absurdity of the Prime Minister's decision to court and then appoint to the federal cabinet a member who had only hours before been elected by the people of his riding to sit as a member of the Liberal caucus? The people of Vancouver Kingsway made a clear and decisive choice as to which vision of Canada they wished to have represented in the House of Commons. My colleagues across the floor can speak all they wish about accountability, but the truth is that a fundamental principle of our parliamentary democracy is that members are accountable to those who choose them, the voters of their riding. In this instance, the people issued their verdict only to have it completely ignored in less than 14 days. How is this accountability?

Then with hardly a moment to catch his breath, the Prime Minister proceeded to elevate to the Senate of Canada a long-standing personal supporter, simply so that he might also enter his cabinet, in the public works portfolio no less. This action was by the Prime Minister who never misses an opportunity to deride that institution or the process by which its members are appointed.

We were then all witness to a veritable barrage of criticism regarding the Ethics Commissioner, who would dare to even consider a review of the Prime Minister's decision.

The list goes on. Before my esteemed colleagues across the floor begin to attack the ethics of the previous administration, I would suggest a reflective view in the mirror would be more in order.

Furthermore, the Prime Minister has consistently spoken of his concern about the role of lobbyists in the political process. To demonstrate this concern, he proceeded to appoint to the cabinet a Minister of National Defence who is by every definition imaginable a lobbyist for the defence industry.

When it comes to accountability and ethics, we can hardly hear what the government is saying because its behaviour speaks so loudly.

We should also be concerned about what is lacking in this legislation. Where are the references to third party advertising? Clearly the role of third party advertising, which can be virtually unlimited, is a serious issue worthy of our attention. Third party advertising has the potential in any debate to skew the playing field. In avoiding any attempt to address this issue, the government is demonstrating a lack of good judgment.

As we speak about what is missing from this bill, we should also ask where there is any reference to access to information. The business we do here is the people's business. The voters have a right to know what goes on here in Ottawa. They should not have to endure a wall of secrecy. There should be a mechanism in the bill to allow for a full and open account of how the government operates. Instead, we are exposed to a government that micromanages information and is perhaps one of the most secretive administrations in Canadian history.

The truth is that the federal accountability legislation is like much of what the government has undertaken to date. It is narrow in focus and serves a very limited ideological view. It may look good at first sight, but behind its veil there is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

The Prime Minister ran a campaign that was centred on his commitment to transparency and accountability within government. The bill falls far short of the reasonable expectations of Canadians. It addresses some areas of concern but totally ignores others.

To reiterate, the government's behaviour to date in terms of accountability and responsibility in government certainly leaves something to be desired. This all started before the signature was dry on the oaths of office at Rideau Hall.

Furthermore, on the subject of accountability, what about some of the other areas of public policy where the government has demonstrated a lack of accountability to Canadians?

Recently I have been approached by hard-working families who have worked in this country as undocumented workers. They have built families here, paid taxes, sent their children to school and helped make our country prosperous, yet they are now facing deportation at a time when industries such as the construction sector in Toronto are desperately in need of their labour. We need an immigration system that is more responsive, more compassionate and more understanding of the needs of this country. This needs to be addressed in very short order.

What about our cities? In the last Parliament, for the first time in history, a federal government treated our cities with dignity and respect. Indeed, the current mayor of Toronto often spoke of his gratitude to the previous prime minister and his government for finally inviting cities to the table. Where is the accountability from this government in that area?

We are a young country, but we are also a country with an increasingly large senior population. Where is the commitment to these Canadians who have spent their lives defending and building this country and sharing their vision with generations yet to come? We need to ensure that they are taken care of and treated with respect and dignity. I ask my colleagues now on the government benches, where is the accountability to Canadian seniors?

The arts improve the lives of our citizens, sustain many jobs in this country and draw considerable attention to Canada through a variety of means. The government speaks of its commitment to the arts, but it does not commit the money needed to match its talk. The government has abandoned the previous Liberal government's financial commitment to the arts.

In this esteemed chamber, we make the law of the land. I would encourage all members to remember the words of Cicero, who stated, “The people's good is the highest law”. Canada is a country with a rich history and a rich and beautiful natural environment, including the boreal forests, which are a national treasure. We are truly blessed and each day we must be grateful for this great country.

The government speaks of accountability, but we surely must see that there is a great deal of space between its concept of accountability and its actions. It is for this that the government must be held accountable.

[James Rajotte, Conservative, Edmonton—Leduc, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I note that we are debating the federal accountability act today in the House, something which I did not hear the member address at all in his speech. I would like to ask him some very simple and straightforward questions.

Does the member favour the inclusion in the accountability act of restricting donations to political parties, ending the cash donations, restricting donations, eliminating donations by corporations and unions, and restricting personal donations? Does he support that provision?

Second, does the member support the provisions in the accountability act that would allow the Auditor General to audit all of the government's finances, including foundations and the $11 billion or so that has been put into foundations?

Third, does he support the provisions in the legislation that would allow the Auditor General to follow the money in order to more effectively do her job? The Auditor General has been performing a stellar job thus far, but this act would allow her even more authority and independence to fulfill that role.

Does the member support the three provisions of the accountability act that I have just outlined?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would encourage the member to share my concern about the accountability of the government. How can he state that the words I have spoken had nothing to do with what we are discussing today? The reality is that we are talking about accountability, not just in the simple terms of what it means in fine print, but in regard to what the government has been doing thus far. It has acted totally hypocritically to what has been stated that it has been doing.

I would state that this is a fundamental issue of legislation and that it needs to be addressed, but also in the broader context of what actions have been taken by the government. I have to say that as a member of Parliament I certainly am quite shocked and astounded by all of the flip-flops of the government over the last while. It is shameful, the lack of accountability.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of comments for my hon. colleague. Obviously we cannot have accountability anywhere if we are not going to be accountable to our constituents, so I would like him to respond to the floor crossing aspect and why it is not in the accountability package.

The other day we heard that the Prime Minister was referred to by his trade minister as having somewhat of a derrière of concrete, which I suppose would be the proper way to say it, but he is also travelling to New Brunswick for a $500 a plate dinner. I am just wondering if the hon. member knows whether the Prime Minister will be travelling on government expense, which is the taxpayer's expense, or is he going to be travelling at the expense of the New Brunswick Progressive Conservatives? I wonder if the hon. member would have any insight into how the Prime Minister will cover off the cost of that travel to New Brunswick for a so-called PC event.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this dinner is a $1,000 a plate dinner. I do not know but would hope that the Prime Minister in fact would not use taxpayers' money to get to the event. I think that again would be a total act of hypocrisy by the government. It claims to be an accountable government, but it in fact has acted quite the contrary.

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there is much in the act that we can all agree with, of course, and much that is laudable, but it seems to me that one glaring exception is the lack of reference to third party advertising, thereby allowing people, possibly even people from other countries, to influence Canadian elections. I would ask the hon. member for Davenport if he has any comment on that glaring exception. It is missing big time.