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

[Jean-Pierre Blackburn, Conservative, Jonquière—Alma, QC]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for this courtesy.

First of all, I would like to tell my colleague that I am convinced her French has improved. Indeed you cannot attend the Centre linguistique du Cégep de Jonquière, in a region where 99.9% of the people speak French, without acquiring some very good knowledge of this second language.

I wish to tell my colleague that I too intend to try and improve my second language by going to Toronto in early August. I will have the opportunity to spend two weeks there in immersion to try and improve, too.

That said, it is impossible to put everything into one bill. The priority of this one was to deal with transparency. It was also aimed at better management of public funds so that Canadians can see what is being done with their money. It also limits election contributions by setting a maximum for such amounts at $1,000 for all citizens and also by not accepting donations from unions and other organizations.

The spirit of the law is good and this is the spirit in which the Prime Minister wished to table this bill, so that Canadians can see what is being done with their money and what politicians are doing in terms of accountability.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to talk about the most important new legislation in Canada's history with respect to cleaning up the way politics is done and the way government is run. That, of course, is the federal accountability act.

Before I proceed, let me say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River.

I knocked on over 40,000 doors in the two and a half years leading up to the last federal election. My riding of Edmonton Centre is extremely diverse, with people of dozens of ethnicities, all income levels, all lifestyles and all levels of interest in politics.

There were many issues discussed at those 40,000 doorsteps, but one stood out above the others, especially in the couple of months leading up to January 23. That issue was corruption and accountability. I heard it at door after door.

I have to say that I took a lot of abuse for things that I had not done, but because I was on their doorstep as an aspiring politician they attributed it to me anyway. That is okay. I did not mind taking the abuse because I felt very strongly about it, and that was one of the reasons I got into this in the first place. I felt that something had to be done to clean up our act.

I will not belabour the history behind why it became such an important issue to Canadians. That sad story is well known. Voters rendered their judgment on January 23.

Canadians voted for change, positive change, and that is exactly what the federal accountability act delivers. I sat in as a substitute for three hours of the committee's work in bringing Bill C-2 to this point. I was very impressed with the level of cooperation between all members and their commitment to delivering accountability to Canadians.

The committee ground through hundreds of clauses, hundreds of pages and dozens of witnesses in six weeks. It was an enormous task. I was extremely impressed to watch a small part of it and to be a small part of it. Ultimately,on behalf of Canadians, the committee has delivered a great piece of legislation back to the House. It deserves our full support.

Of the many provisions of this historic legislation, I would like to highlight two.

The first area I would like to address is that of making qualified government appointments. The current process does not fully respect Parliament and it is inconsistent. The current system is not as transparent and merit based as it could be and should be.

To correct these shortcomings, the federal accountability act will do several things. The federal accountability act will institute a uniform approach to appointing officers and agents of Parliament and ensure a meaningful role for Parliament in the process.

Bill C-2 will create a public appointments commission in the Prime Minister's portfolio to oversee, monitor and report on the selection process for appointments to government boards, commissions, agencies and crown corporations.

The federal accountability act will also allow the Chief Electoral Officer to appoint returning officers, following an external appointment process, with provisions that ensure the merit principle is applied.

Finally, the act will remove the entitlements of all ministers' staffs to priority appointments and instead allow them to apply for internal competitions for public service positions for up to one year.

What this means is that Canadians can be assured that the appointments process is approved by Parliament, that government appointments reward merit while being open and fair, and that the potential for politicizing the public service is reduced.

I would also like to address the area of cleaning up the procurement of government contracts. In another life, I was intimately involved with what was the largest military procurement at that time, the CF-18 program. The program spanned two governments, one Conservative and one Liberal. On balance, it was a pretty good program, with some interference on the part of government, but not an inordinate amount.

About a dozen or so years later, we had the Sea King replacement that has stretched on and still is not resolved. That was primarily due to unbelievable government interference in the process, which had potentially disastrous consequences for the brave men and women flying that aircraft.

As the largest purchaser of goods and services in Canada, the government must have a bidding process that is fair, open and transparent. Canadians will be able to have confidence in the procurement process, which will include an overarching statement of principles on procurement, one that commits the government to promoting fairness, openness and transparency in the bidding process.

Canadians will know that contracts include integrity provisions.

The federal accountability act will create a procurement auditor who will review procurement practices, handle complaints from potential suppliers, review complaints regarding contract administration, manage an alternative dispute resolution process, and submit an annual report to be tabled in Parliament.

The government will also engage an independent expert to review draft policy on managing procurement to reinforce a fair, open and transparent procurement process.

We will introduce a code of conduct for procurement. That will consolidate conflict of interest and anti-corruption policies, which will be applicable both to suppliers and to public service employees.

Finally, government will provide more resources and greater regional presence to the Office of Small and Medium Enterprises within Public Works and Government Services Canada. That will help businesses maintain access to government opportunities and will ensure them fair treatment.

What does this mean for Canadians? It means that Canadians can be assured that government will have a procurement process that is free of political interference. We will have a clear process in place to address complaints from potential suppliers. The little guy in all regions of Canada will also have the ability to compete for government contracts.

There are many other provisions of the federal accountability act that I do not have time to cover in detail. I could go on about whistleblower protection; strengthening auditing and accountability within departments; banning secret donations to political candidates; reforming the financing of political parties; strengthening the role of the Ethics Commissioner; toughening the Lobbyists Registration Act; cleaning up government polling and advertising; and ensuring truth in budgeting with a parliamentary budget authority.

They are all important to making our political process more trustworthy, because if Canadians do not feel they can trust us, then they have no reason to vote for us or to even care about the political process. We simply could not allow that to happen. The implementation of this act will go a long way to restoring Canadians' confidence in this institution.

It will not be enough to pass the act and then not abide by its provisions. We will all have to walk the talk. Canadians will be watching us all closely and we will not let them down. If we do, we do so at our peril. I am sure that all members of all parties will take that responsibility seriously. I look forward to being part of that parade.

The President of the Treasury Board, his parliamentary secretary, their staff and all members who served on the committee have done Canadians and Parliament a great service. They deserve great credit as well as the gratitude of all Canadians.

When I go back to Edmonton Centre this summer and spend time with the 93,000 voters and 122,000 people to whom I am responsible, I will be proud to talk about the great work that all members of the House did in passing the federal accountability act.

The shortcomings of political ethics and accountability were a major motivator for me to get into this line of work in the first place. I am happy to say that the passing of the act will go a long way toward justifying that decision to myself.

I look forward to the next 40,000 doors in Edmonton Centre and I urge all members to pass this great piece of legislation for the benefit of all Canadians.

[Richard Nadeau, Bloc, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not hear the answer. There is a lot skating going on in the party in power.

The accountability bill is noble, and we have no objections to it. We are going to pass it. Nevertheless, at present, in the federal cabinet, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services—everyone knows this—was made a member of the Cabinet without being elected. The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities told us earlier that it was because someone important was needed from Montreal. It is true that no Conservative was elected there. As far as I know, no Conservatives were elected in Trois-Rivières, Sherbrooke or Laval, either.

Why talk about an accountability act? We were elected under a democratic system. And in such a system, those elected by the people are the ones that represent them and are accountable to them. How can the member explain then, without making it difficult and without trying to put us to sleep, that something as fundamental as appointing a minister from among the elected representatives was rejected?

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and, I have to admit, a little amusement to my hon. colleague's question. I can assure him that the three ridings he mentioned in fact will have Conservative members of Parliament after the next election.

I will point out, as has been pointed out already, that there is a theme here tonight. It seems to be “pick on the Minister of Public Works and Government Services night”. That is fair. This is a democracy. Members can pick on anybody they like.

We are not skirting anything. We are taking on accountability head-on. We are taking on the lack of accountability and ethics and the corruption we have seen in previous governments for the last many years head-on.

Senator Fortier has agreed to run in the next federal election, as the member well knows. He has said that many times. He is a man of great integrity and great ability. He is doing a tremendous job in his current portfolio, and he is certainly not the first senator who served in the cabinet of Canada with great distinction. He continues to do that. I very strongly suspect that after the next election he will be a member of this House and will continue in an important cabinet role.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I want to applaud the member for Ottawa Centre for two things he said in his speech, which I listened to carefully.

I would first like to applaud him for acknowledging the fact that members in opposition worked together with other members in government and in opposition to try to bring about amendments and improvements in response to witness presentations over a six week period.

I walked into the chamber a little while ago after coming from my foreign affairs committee and I first heard a Liberal member chastising the NDP for supporting the Conservative legislation now before us in the form of the federal accountability act. Then I heard a Conservative member chastising the NDP for being critical over some of the things that were omitted. I think it was a fair and accurate reflection by the member for Ottawa Centre to acknowledge that there were a lot of amendments. That is what members are there for. We are not here to obstruct legislation but to actually improve legislation when the opportunity presents itself.

I want to congratulate him for having referenced the Sea Kings nightmare and what is really the scandal of them not being replaced to this day even though it is not--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I apologize to the hon. member for Halifax, but I do have to allow enough time for the member for Edmonton Centre to respond.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate my hon. colleague's comments, but I will point out that Edmonton is a long way from Ottawa, although I love Ottawa as well.

I do thank her for the observation. I am a rookie in this place, but one thing I came here to do was to cooperate with members of all parties, because we all have something to offer to this place and we all have something to offer to Canadians.

We can do it in a much more effective manner if we are willing to walk on each other's road a mile or two to get something done together that will advance the issue, whatever it is, for all Canadians. I am very proud to be a small part of this. I look forward to doing that for a very long time in representing Edmonton Centre or any other riding that the hon. member would like to put me in.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the last thing I would want to do is take away from my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, the riding which he now proudly represents as a New Democrat. I intended no offence by this slip of tongue in referring to Ottawa Centre, not Edmonton Centre.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to speak to Bill C-2, the federal accountability act, despite the late hour this evening. I do not believe it is an overstatement to call this one of the most important pieces of legislation in Canadian democratic history. The very circumstances under which this bill was drafted and introduced have been historic.

It might surprise my opponents across the way that I am not going to use my opportunity to speak on this bill by rehashing the sponsorship scandal and other well publicized scandals which led to the Liberal Party of Canada's troubles while it was in government, as well as its current state of turmoil now that it is in opposition. While these unfortunate events were the catalysts that ultimately led to the tabling of Bill C-2, I refer to them only in order to demonstrate that this legislation we are debating will not only serve Canadians and our entire democratic political system, it will ultimately serve the best interests of the political parties themselves.

First and foremost, the federal accountability act protects Canadians' hard-earned tax dollars and preserves the credibility of and confidence in our democratic institutions. However, by its very nature, this legislation will provide all political parties with the comfort and reassurance of strict guidelines and codes of practice. Had these stringent rules legislated under this bill been in place several years ago, it is possible that my colleagues in the Liberal Party may not have had to endure the controversy and the internal turmoil that is their reality today.

I may disagree on many issues with my colleagues across the floor of this chamber, but I know that Canadians are best served by both a strong government and a strong opposition.

The reforms proposed under Bill C-2 are designed to enhance the openness of all federal political parties. If a particular party gains the ultimate confidence of Canadians and forms a government, it will benefit from the reforms and guidelines this legislation imposes upon government operations and accountability.

By toughening the laws concerning the financing of political parties and candidates, Bill C-2 will increase transparency and reduce opportunities to influence politicians, thereby helping Canadians feel more confident about our democratic process.

These measures include a ban on contributions by corporations, unions and organizations, and lower limits on contributions that individuals can make to a registered party, candidates, nomination contestants and district associations. This legislation also bans secret donations to political candidates. It prohibits candidates from accepting gifts that might risk influencing them in the performance of their elected duties. It requires them to report any gifts over $500.

When it comes to influencing government, this bill includes significant measures to ensure that lobbying is practised in an ethical and transparent manner. For example, ministers, ministerial staff, transition team members and senior public servants will not be permitted to lobby the Government of Canada for five years after leaving office.

Bill C-2 will also ensure that government contracts are free from political interference. In addition, government polling and advertising will be subject to strict new rules. Significant violations and scandalous practices within these two aspects of government operations were brought to light in recent years by the Auditor General of Canada.

As we are all well aware in this House, reports issued by the Office of the Auditor General of Canada are largely what compelled Canadians to recognize the urgent need to address severe and widespread deficiencies in government accountability and the misuse of taxpayers' money. Parliamentarians need objective and fact based information about how the government raises and spends public funds. The Auditor General is an independent and reliable source of such information.

This new Conservative government recognizes the major contribution of the Auditor General. In fact, Bill C-2 is our tangible tribute to the professionalism, diligence and forthright honesty of our current Auditor General, Sheila Fraser. She is probably the most respected and trusted federal official in Canada today. Many of the reforms proposed in this legislation are based upon recommendations that she herself made.

Therefore, in drafting the federal accountability act and the accompanying non-legislative action plan, it was clear to our government that we must also strengthen the Office of the Auditor General to further enhance her ability to serve Parliament and Canadians.

The Auditor General audits federal departments and agencies, most crown corporations and many other federal organizations. She reports up to four times a year to the House of Commons on matters that she believes should be brought to the attention of the House, and she testifies on audits before parliamentary committees.

The federal accountability act would give the Auditor General much wider powers to follow the money. In 2005 the Auditor General Act was amended to allow the Auditor General to inquire into the use of funds, essentially transfer payments and loans received by not for profit corporations or corporations without share capital that had in any five consecutive fiscal years received a total of $100 million or more under funding agreements.

This was a good start to address the Auditor General's concerns on significant transfers to foundations. However, it does not allow the Auditor General to follow the money for a wider range of transfer payment recipients. The federal accountability act would greatly extend this mandate.

At her discretion the Auditor General would now be empowered to inquire into the use of grants, contributions and loans by individuals, institutions and companies that receive funding under funding agreements. The only exemptions are for payments to other governments, which includes first nations, and to international organizations. The power will extend to funding provided by crown corporations themselves. The financial limit will be lowered from $100 million so that recipients that receive $1 million or more in total over five years are included. The $100 million threshold will allow the Auditor General to focus on larger payments and will serve to exclude payments to Canadians under basic statutory entitlement programs such as old age security and guaranteed income supplement.

The act would also enable regulations to be passed that will require that funding agreements with recipients include provisions that support the Auditor General's mandate. Specifically, funding agreements will include terms that require recipients to provide information and records to the Auditor General on request. These changes will allow the Auditor General much greater ability to follow the money when she considers it to be appropriate for the purposes of informing Parliament on the use of funds.

In addition, certain immunities available to some other agents of Parliament will be extended to the Office of the Auditor General. The act would provide immunity for the Auditor General from criminal and civil proceedings for actions taken in the performance or execution of her duties, functions or powers. This protection would not extend to excesses or abuses of authority, but would protect the Auditor General and persons acting on her behalf or under her direction where their actions are taken in good faith in the performance of their duties.

The act would also provide protection to the Auditor General from being a compellable witness in most proceedings. She and persons acting on her behalf or under her direction would not be required to testify about information that came to their attention in the course of performing their duties.

Further to the legislative changes to be enacted through the federal accountability act, we will proceed immediately with non-legislative measures to ensure that the Office of the Auditor General has adequate resources to fulfill its mandate. The Auditor General is one of five agents of Parliament currently participating in a two year pilot project. Under this pilot project an all party parliamentary advisory panel considers the funding requests of agents prior to a final Treasury Board decision on their budgets. This process gives Parliament a greater role and respects the independence of agents of Parliament while allowing the Treasury Board Secretariat to provide input on panel recommendations.

These changes will reassure Parliament and Canadians that this government strongly supports the Auditor General's role as an essential source of independent information about government spending. Our current Auditor General is a hard act to follow. However, it is my fervent hope that once Bill C-2 and its accompanying non-legislative reforms become well established and entrenched in our democratic and political institutions, Canadians will extend to more federal officials the kind of confidence that they now hold for the Auditor General.

In conclusion, I know that in my riding of Prince George--Peace River in northeastern British Columbia confidence and trust in government have eluded my constituents for far too many years. I believe that the passage of the federal accountability act will serve to help restore those highly valued fundamentals of Canadian democracy.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, in the last election many of us were very concerned about the erosion of Canadians' faith in ethical government because of the behaviour of the previous government with its scandals and corruption that we all witnessed.

Canadians sent a loud and clear message that they wanted those of us elected to this Parliament to clean up government and restore their faith in ethics and accountability. I am very pleased and proud of a government that is bringing in these kinds of changes that Canadians have wanted to see for so long. I am very proud that it was the NDP that has made many proposed changes that have been voted on and adopted to strengthen this legislation.

I was personally involved in submitting proposals for change around the public appointments commission to ensure that rather than a vague notion of appointments made from the Prime Minister's office, in fact it would be a strong commission that would be accountable to the House of Commons and it would really get rid of patronage based appointments.

My question for the hon. member on his commentary this evening is around the issue of appointments. Will his government now move to appoint the head of the appointments commission so that we can get on with having clear and accountable appointments for all Canadians?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that thanks to the NDP and the other opposition parties, that process is not in place now. That is simply because the person whom we had considered to head up that commission, a very renowned gentleman from western Canada who was a businessman, was brought before a parliamentary committee, criticized and torn apart in front of all Canadians on national television. It was a televised committee meeting. His appointment was rejected by that committee.

Despite the best efforts of the Prime Minister and this government, the Conservative Party of Canada, who wanted to have an arm's length process in place that the member says she supports, the opposition parties did everything possible to demean that process and to ensure that no other individual would want to let his or her name stand to go through that type of process.

I think that is a real shame. The reality is that we should have, and the Prime Minister supports, an arm's length process so that we do not have the old system in place where it is only the Prime Minister and individuals in the PMO who make those selections and make those appointments. We would rather have that other system, but I would hesitate, as certainly the Prime Minister would, to appoint someone only to have him or her appear before a committee and be torn apart by partisan interests on the part of the opposition parties.

[Peggy Nash, NDP, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. member is not wishing to undermine the democratic process of a parliamentary committee and the democratic vote that took place to determine that the Prime Minister's proposed appointment was unsuitable for the position. I think it is quite reasonable that the committee would determine that someone so partisan who was being proposed would not be a suitable head for a commission responsible for thousands of appointments across Canada.

Will the government accept the democratic decision of the committee and now move to propose a more suitable candidate for the position of heading up this newly created appointments commission so that it has teeth and is truly accountable to Parliament?

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, suitable to whom? I think that is the question.

We and the Prime Minister did not deny that committee the right to democratically express its opinion on the appointment Gwyn Morgan. That committee had its right to do that, and we do not deny that.

Gwyn Morgan, who headed up EnCana, was not unsuitable. He is one of the most highly regarded and highly respected business people. He was going to do this job for $1 a year. It is important for Canadians watching these proceedings at home to understand that. In other words, he was going to do it for free. A person of that stature was going to assist to set up an appointment process. He was not going to make the appointments himself. Let us be clear about that. Because of his knowledge and his understanding of structure and corporate structure, he was going set up that process. The opposition parties, for purely partisan reasons, trashed him in committee and passed that motion.

Why would we select someone else to go through that process?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise this evening regarding Bill C-2, at third reading.

I had the honour, if I can put it that way, to sit on the legislative committee responsible for Bill C-2, to which the bill was referred at second reading. That was a revelation.

It was something to see the way that the government, with the complicity of the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre, ensured that the witnesses appearing before the committee did not have the time to fully present their points of view. They were unable to do their preparatory work properly before coming before the committee.

After their presentations, certain witnesses asked to come back a second time, considering that they had not been given enough time to do justice to their viewpoints or to the recommendations they wanted to make to the committee.

The government members and the NDP member refused to give these witnesses the option to return.

I will go no further with this. I think that those Canadians who followed the committee’s proceedings—which were, after all, publicized and in the media—were able to see the behaviour of the hon. members, particularly that of the government’s parliamentary secretaries.

I will be raising five points in my speech. I want to talk about the Parliament of Canada Act, the changes that the government has tried to make to it, and the reasons that drove the hon. members of the opposition to stop the government’s action to amend the Parliament of Canada Act.

I also want to talk about the Public Servants Disclosure Protection Tribunal.

I want to talk about the Public Appointments Commission.

I also want to talk about two other subjects that were raised by certain hon. members in both the NDP and the Conservative Party.

I would like to talk about the questions of floor crossing and of the minimum age to contribute financially to a political party. I will start with the question of floor crossing.

I find it amazing that a member of the NDP took to task members of the Liberal Party and the Bloc for certain decisions taken in committee. What was interesting was that same member was also denouncing Liberal members and government members, who sit on the Standing Committee on the Environment, for upholding a ruling of the chair regarding an NDP motion. The member said it was anti-democratic, it was disgusting, it was this, it was that. I will not even use all of the words.

At the same time, in the legislative committee on Bill C-2, my colleague, the member for Vancouver Quadra, who is also the Liberal critic for democratic reform, had tabled an amendment to Bill C-2 which would have dealt with the issue of floor-crossing. It would have allowed a process for constituents, who had voted for a member who then crossed the floor to another party, to do what we in popular terms call a recall. The chair of the committee ruled the amendment out of order. The NDP member for Winnipeg Centre and the government members voted to uphold the chair's ruling. The Liberal members did not say that was undemocratic. We did not denounce the member for Winnipeg Centre for voting to uphold the ruling of the chair.

However, one of his colleagues turned around and denounced Liberal members for upholding a chair's ruling that an NDP motion in another committee was out of order and said it was undemocratic. I think that speaks to the level of hypocrisy we see at times from at least two parties in the House, the Conservatives and the NDP.

On the question of minimum age for donation. For the last several weeks we have heard non-stop members of the Conservative government, members of the NDP and especially the member for Winnipeg Centre rise in indignation that a Liberal leadership candidate legally accepted donations from children under the age of 18. They said it was inappropriate and reprehensible. It was like stealing from kids' lunch boxes or doing political financing in day cares.

Yet on the legislative committee, when a Liberal amendment would have set the minimum age to make legal contributions to political parties at 18, guess who voted against it? The NDP member for Winnipeg Centre and the five Conservative members of Parliament who sat on that committee.

[An hon. member]

Hypocrisy.