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

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our point as a party is that notwithstanding the fact that there is seemingly more independence in this process than the previous whistleblower legislation, we have concerns that whistleblowers going forward may see that their grievances are not being heard fully and independently by someone appointed by the Prime Minister. We need to look at the scrutiny of appointments by the Prime Minister. Perhaps this is something we could look at in terms of amendments. That is my first point.

My second point is about the remedy that would be in place for those grievances if the whistleblower was not satisfied or was not being heard. We have seen this time and time again with whistleblowers. In fact, some of the whistleblowers who have blown the whistle in this city and who are constituents of mine have blown the whistle one, two or three times. Each time they are fighting the cause and doing good work for Canadians, but they are being beaten down because there is no access to an appropriate remedy.

I am simply making the point that if at the end of day there is not a fair hearing for whistleblowers, they should be able to avail themselves of the court system, which is independent, not questioning the appointments of the judiciary, simply talking about the avenues in which they can go and the fact that we have oversight for those appointments for this tribunal process.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with reform of this place. There were comments made about changing the nature of Parliament. It is a topic that I have had a personal and professional interest in for a long time.

There are two concerns I have always had with proportional representation that I would like the member to comment on. First, under our current system, any citizen of Canada has the right to run for this place directly and to represent his or her peers as a member of Parliament. Under a proportional representation system, that would not exist any more. As an individual, one would have to go through a party. A party would actually determine who would be here.

That raises my second point. If it is a list system in a proportional representation legislature, who determines who gets on the list? These two points are connected. As a member of Parliament in my riding, I feel responsible to my constituents for what I do. There are a lot of Saturday mornings when I roll out very early to head off for a full day of events because it is my riding and they are my constituents. I think that people elected in a proportional representation system would be much less likely to do that.

I have two parts of one question. First, how does the member resolve this issue that individuals actually cannot run for Parliament, that it is up to parties to decide who would sit in this place? Second, how would the member convince the voters out there that they would be better served by members of Parliament who are not actually directly connected to them or not directly elected by them, and consequently have no responsibility back to them, but who will be less accessible to them because it is not their own constituency per se?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have an observation. When we look at the present cabinet of the government, we see someone who has not in fact been elected and was appointed by the Prime Minister by way of going into the Senate. I think we have some problems at present.

I will say quickly that we are not talking about full proportional representation. If we were to go to the Law Reform Commission website, we could see what the model is. It is very sensible. Most Canadians who have seen it agree with the model. I look forward to further debate on electoral reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for splitting his time and for his speech, which I thought was commendable and touched on some of the points that I think need to be raised in the House and have not received the proper attention they need from the government.

Second, as this is my first time to rise in the House, I would like to thank the voters of Skeena—Bulkley Valley who saw fit to place me in this seat again and represent their views. It is from their perspective that I am looking at this voluminous bill which seems to cry out for clarity and attention to detail.

I will be fully transparent with the House. I am ambitious, but I have only made it three-quarters of the way through the bill. I would not want to be disparaging in thinking about how many members who have spoken, particularly from the government ranks, have not read the bill in its entirety as yet. Let us presume they have and have missed a few of the key points that need fixing.

The riding from which I hail is a rural riding in northwestern British Columbia and is extraordinarily beautiful. In that riding are people who bring a great deal of rural Canadian common sense to issues of the day and who ask me to bring some of that perspective to bills like this one that are filled with the obviously necessary legal jargon in order to be presented in the House. Yet in a region like mine, which is just now turning the corner from years of regional economic pain and suffering, a region that is 30% to 35% first nations people with a long and strong history of good governance and sound pride in their culture and tradition, they want a government they can trust.

And gosh, after all these years of watching brown bags pass across tables in Italian restaurants, still there is a kernel of hope in the voting minds of our constituents, who want to believe that this place can become more accountable. They want to believe that the members, and particularly those who do not sit in the seats that represent the cabinet of this country, will in fact represent their interests and not the interests of narrow self-interest groups and lobbyists.

I will break the accountability act into two parts. One part is what is in it and one part is what is not in it. The former shall be quite a bit smaller than the latter. In it is some progress on whistleblowing and some progress on campaign finance reform and crown corporation transparency; that is the government's due. We must again commend the work of Mr. Broadbent for what is not missing. He spent many years in this place and outside this place pushing for many of the reforms that I find in Bill C-2.

This, I believe, is the duty of all members of the House, from all four corners, both opposition and government. It is not simply to stand up and clap ourselves on the back and say, “A job well done and let us get on with it”. It is the duty of all members to look at the bill. Let us look at what the government is proposing and look at believing in the intention that the Prime Minister has spoken about. We must look to see if that intention is true, from the campaign to now, about truly opening up government to the scrutiny of Canadian citizens and their representatives who sit in these seats in this House.

The list is long, but I will try to focus on what is not in this bill, on the pieces in the bill that need either serious reform or an outright new look, and at whether that is presented in another omnibus bill, heaven help us, or in a partial act that comes before the House. Floor-crossing comes immediately to mind.

I listened to the two parliamentary secretaries prior to my speech and found them wanting in their discussion about open and transparent democracy. On the one hand, it was suggested that the bill furthers the cause of democracy and accountability in this country. On the other hand, it was said that it was quite acceptable to appoint someone to the Senate and then drop them into a cabinet seat if the government was unable to win seats in the vicinity of Montreal.

Then, lo and behold, some of its policies and its candidates did not attract the voters in the vicinity of Montreal. Perhaps one should work harder in that direction and not go against the wishes of the Montrealers I know, who find it difficult to believe how an appointed friend of the government helping it run a campaign somehow deserves the honour of sitting at the cabinet table and making decisions on behalf of them when they had no voice and no say in that person's election. I find the hypocrisy in that one statement alone incredible.

Regarding floor crossing, I know there are hon. members present who are interested in this issue. When people cast their ballots in that most sacred and private act which is an election, they make decisions about their future and about the combination of a party's leader, the party's policies and platforms, and the candidate presented in the local riding. Clearly nobody in this place would suggest that our own presence as candidates is enough to sway the majority of voters in our ridings to vote for us alone. It is the combination of what we represent by the parties we sit with and the policies and debates that we engage in, and it is on that combination that voters present their opinions.

To simply take for granted those opinions, that sacred trust placed in the ballot box and decide for ourselves where we should sit in this House, what policies we should be pushing for and what credo we should stand by is hypocrisy that Canadians clearly cannot stand for. It further erodes the confidence people have in the simple act of putting measures in this so-called accountability act, which many Canadians agree with, which simply asks members who choose to no longer sit with a party, however long or short the time has been that they have sat with that party, to sit as independent members. Some independent members have been very effective in this House. In a byelection the members would seek a new mandate under the new party's flag, policies and leader, in order to go forward and do the work they feel is best on behalf of their ridings. It passes the test when I speak about it in various parts of this country and particularly in my home in Skeena--Bulkley Valley.

The biggest hole in this bill in terms of details is access to information that citizens and members of Parliament need to have. Knowledge truly is power when it comes to the dealings of government. While the vast majority of civil servants, the majority of members of Parliament, those sitting in government and otherwise, come to their work with integrity and honesty, there will always be suspicion. Voters and members of Parliament need solid access to information legislation set in law that will allow them the power to wrest information from government, which has its own self-interests as members now sitting in the official opposition can well attest, and bring it to the light of day. My colleague from Winnipeg Centre has said that sunshine is one of the best cleaners we have. The best determinant we could have to proper and just government is full and open transparency.

That brings me to the BlackBerry, the wonderful device that many have become so greatly addicted to. When we look at lobbyist reform, we find that as long as lobbyists conduct themselves via the most popular form of communication available on the Hill, they are not subject to the scrutiny of transparency and openness, but if they make a phone call, perhaps yes, and if they sit down, certainly yes. That seems absolutely silly and obviously is an oversight which I look forward to the government correcting as the bill heads to committee.

Appointments will be the last subject I touch upon. When we raised the issue of floor crossing earlier in this debate, a member of the government stood up and said that lo and behold, some 25 years ago a member from the Progressive Conservatives crossed over to the NDP, that the NDP accepted it at that time for two months prior to an election, and how dare they see the light of day and realize that floor crossing is not such a good idea?

I remember reading a news article about former prime minister Mulroney making 1,250 appointments on his last day in office. That is wrong and Canadians identify that as wrong.

When we look at what the government has done in the three months since being in office with respect to open and transparent appointments of officers and people in positions of authority, one scratches one's head to think that hypocrisy can reign so quickly, that in the 13 years it took to mature into the party that is now the official opposition, the government is now on a fast track and able to pull off such leaps and bounds of reason and logic after three months to entice floor crossers, to appoint senators, to appoint failed candidates to positions of influence and authority and all the benefits they ascribe to.

Again, I take the perspective of the common average citizens from my riding and the common average sense and sensibility they bring as Canadians to what they want to see in government . This bill begins to take us along that path, but clearly, the committee is going to be an interesting place to be. There are some fundamental reforms that need to take place in order for this bill to actually become the piece of legislation we all desire.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not understand members of the NDP on this particular issue of changing political parties. I think they tried twice in the last Parliament, I think with a motion and a bill, and they lost on both accounts. It is their prerogative to raise the matter again. With all the issues this Parliament could be discussing, all the things that are important to Canadians, they are obsessed by this. We get it every day during question period. I think there are three slots for the New Democratic Party in question period and usually one out of those three is that they are upset about people crossing the floor.

I could point out to the member that this practice has been part of our democratic tradition for centuries. The greatest parliamentarian probably in the history of our system was Sir Winston Churchill. He crossed the floor. He started off as a Conservative. He fell by the wayside and he became a Liberal. When he saw the light again, he came back to the Conservative Party. It was a great move, a great thing for democracy in Britain and one could argue for the world. He did it.

There are members of my own political party who have been members of three or four different parties. They were part of the Alliance or the Reform, the Democratic Alliance, the Progressive Conservative Party. They were doing their best for Canada and they changed parties.

The NDP wants some outside control. I know what it is all about. It is all about having the party have more control. If members want to leave the NDP or leave any other party, they have to kowtow to the party apparatus or they are in big trouble.

I am prepared to place my confidence and my trust in the voters who will ultimately get a chance to decide on these things.

I realize that members of the NDP are not quite happy with the system we have and they would like referenda on a regular basis to dissolve the Parliament. Perhaps it is because nobody wants to join the NDP. I do not know if that is the problem. I did not hear about this much from the NDP, quite frankly, last May when members of the Conservative Party changed parties, but now it has become an obsession with members of the NDP. Every day during question period, at every opportunity, that is all they are worried about. They might want to worry sometime about crime in this country, about bringing in some minimum sentences. How about worrying about getting that $1,200 to parents with children? How about worrying about that sometime?

Again they are welcome to do that. They can spend the whole 39th Parliament worrying about somebody enticing their members or some member switching parties. They could spend the whole 39th Parliament for all I care--

[The Acting Speaker, Royal Galipeau]

Order. The hon. member for Skeena-Bulkley Valley is being recognized.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will wade through that diatribe to find a question. The question that I actually find is that in fact members of the hon. member's own party, somewhere near 40 of them, voted for such legislation to be brought in in the last Parliament, and would it not be an interesting exercise to go through such a thing again? That is what we hope to do.

In terms of justifying this floor crossing practice and saying it is tradition, there are many things in our tradition that we have left by the wayside, many of them quite bad. Thankfully we do not have some of the traditions that we used to have in yesteryear . Perhaps women not voting or minorities or natives or any of those others not voting are traditions the hon. member would like to grab back because they were considered to be sound and wise traditions, even in Winston Churchill's time.

He chose to go after a party in the middle of this debate and deride it for whether or not it had the attention of voters--while the NDP doubled its votes in the past election and then went up another half again--and to take this debate to such a base level. All we were suggesting is that the voters need to be brought back into the conversation of where it is that members of Parliament stand on issues. When voters hear a candidate during an election deride another party, run it down and accuse it of all sorts of terrible things and then within hours find that the candidate is in agreement with such things, the voters have to question the validity of the electoral process. All the New Democrats are saying is to allow the voters to make a decision and wrest control from the parties. If a member finds it so abhorrent to actually sit with a party any longer that the member needs to cross the floor, the member can simply return to the voters and seek that mandate, for clearly this is not an occurrence that happens every week.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Don Valley East.

As this is my first opportunity to rise in the 1st session of the 39th Parliament, I would like to sincerely thank the citizens of my riding of Saint John for the confidence they have expressed in me. I look forward to advocating strongly on their behalf on issues such as harbour cleanup, housing and child care.

I am pleased to offer my perspective on Bill C-2, the federal accountability act. This is an issue I well understand. In 1988 I represented the Canadian Bar Association before the Holtmann committee that the then prime minister Mulroney had convened to examine the area of lobbying in Canada. In 1994 and 1995 I chaired the industry committee and during that time I chaired the subcommittee on Bill C-43, the Lobbyists Registration Act. In the last Parliament I sat on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics.

I believe that the government has to tread very carefully on this issue and to be intellectually honest about what it is trying to achieve. A lot of media spin and rhetoric from the government that has surrounded the introduction of this bill would give one the impression that all of government is corrupt. This is simply not the case.

This type of rhetoric brings disrepute on the men and women who serve in public life, the people who come to this House of Commons with the right morals and the right intentions. We all come to this place wanting to make a better country, a better place for our children and grandchildren. Anyone who claims that he or she has a monopoly on accountability does a disservice to Parliament and to this country.

Flippant comments and generalizations that are not based on fact bring this House into disrepute. It also brings honest, hard-working civil servants into disrepute. We need to be judicious and we need to be factual about what we say and the perception that it can breed.

Canada is a successful, modern democracy, not some banana republic as the government would like to portray. What it comes down to is either a person is fundamentally honest or not. As the hon. Mitchell Sharp, the esteemed former member of this place, said before our committee in 1995, “You cannot legislate integrity”.

This brings me to the federal accountability act. The measures in this legislation are not fundamental or even dramatic changes. To describe this legislation as wide sweeping, fundamental, ethical reforms is just not the case. We should not be telling Canadians that we can legislate integrity. We cannot.

The changes proposed in this legislation are things that we as parliamentarians have been talking about and moving toward since the 1980s. This is part of the Canadian tradition. We review legislation after a three or a five year period and improve or change the legislative framework so that it is more reflective of public expectations of legislators and civil servants.

For example, the evolution of the ethics counsellor who reported to the prime minister evolved to an Ethics Commissioner who reports to Parliament, to the creation of a new ethics auditor on lobbying.

Interestingly, we talked about this in the 1995 report, “Rebuilding Trust”. The government speaks of these changes, yet at the same time it seems to have shown disrespect for independent officers of Parliament, such as the Ethics Commissioner. While parliamentarians may not always agree on everything that the Ethics Commissioner says, to politicize the issue casts a negative pale over everyone in this place.

Members in previous Parliaments worked together to establish an Ethics Commissioner who reports directly to Parliament and yet time and time again members of this government refused to participate in investigations and tried to undermine the integrity of Mr. Shapiro. Either we have accountability or we do not. The government cannot pick and choose which investigations it wants to participate in or who occupies the position of the Ethics Commissioner.

The issue of reforming the financing of political parties and candidates is not a new issue. A significant overhaul was already completed by the Liberal government in 2003. I support the latest changes, but they are tinkering with the natural process. When this bill reaches committee, I would also like to see the inclusion of third party advertising restrictions perhaps.

This bill talks a lot about lobbyists. The government, through its media spin, would have Canadians believe that all lobbyists are crooked or corrupt. That clearly is not the case. I would like to remind parliamentarians of a 1995 report called “Rebuilding Trust”. This report came out of a committee that I had the privilege of chairing. It was called “Rebuilding Trust” because of a perception that, between the period of 1984 and 1993, there was a lot of corruption under the Conservatives. That government did suffer some serious ethical challenges which then Prime Minister Mulroney attempted to redress.

Interacting and advocating to government is a natural part of the democratic process, whether it is charities like the Canadian Cancer Society or the Canadian Institute for the Blind, or firms that are looking to do business with the government. There are checks and balances in this current legislation. To pretend that this bill is a complete overhaul is disingenuous indeed.

In the fall of 2002 when the government was in opposition, the then prime minister put forward a motion to the House of Commons proposing that the chairs of House committees be elected by secret ballot rather than being appointed directly by the prime minister. With the cooperation of members of the House, the motion passed and our committee chairs were elected by secret ballot. The government is now seeking to reverse this very process that we in the House put in place. This one act of not electing our chairs would lend some hypocrisy to this legislation. The government has spoken about reforming the appointment process and I am fully in support of this, but this is a natural evolution of this policy.

Whistleblower legislation is also a natural evolution. Legislation was before the House during the last Parliament and I look forward to participating in that debate.

Steps are going in the right direction to expand the reach of the Auditor General. They would build on improvements that we made when we were in government. Strengthening auditing and accountability within departments was done in the last Parliament. It is not something new; it is not something dramatic. There are aspects of the legislation that will work well; however, it is the natural evolution of this Parliament.

Accountability is about doing what we say we are going to do and keeping our promises. Accountability should be about the Prime Minister coming to my riding of Saint John, New Brunswick and delivering money that is needed to clean up our harbour as he promised he would do on three occasions. Instead, the Prime Minister makes a token gesture of $2.2 million and says the government is starting to clean up the harbour. The previous government promised $44 million. To pretend that $2.2 million is going to clean up our harbour is not genuine. Reinvesting money in our community is about accountability.

I look forward to sending this bill to committee and to working with all members of the House toward improvements.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I note that the member criticized the approach of the government with respect to cracking down on the pervasive culture of lobbyists who exerted undue influence in the previous government. He himself of course was a lobbyist. Immediately after leaving office he entered that sector, stayed in it, and now he is coming before the House of Commons and criticizing our legislation which seeks to regulate and control, with some degree of accountability, that sector.

We are taking steps to make public the number of meetings that occur between lobbyists and ministers, to end the revolving door between ministers' offices and lobby firms, and to institute a cooling-off period of five years from the time people leave a minister's office until the time they can begin lobbying that minister's office.

These are real steps. In fact, the Ottawa Citizen has called them a cultural revolution. The National Post called them the most sweeping ethics changes in a generation. The Globe and Mail said that clean does not get any squeakier.

Why will this member of the House and former lobbyist not stand now and affirm that he will support the accountability act, fall in line with what his other party members have finally said, and affirm his support for this, the toughest anti-corruption law in Canadian history?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the presumption of the member's question is a little flawed. First of all, my criticisms are in fact part of what this process is about. Let us get this piece of legislation, which in principle I support, to committee and let us get some improvements to areas that need changes. To pretend, like the hon. member would have us believe, that this is wide sweeping legislative change is just not correct. That is not a fact.

I would commend the hon. member to read a report called “Rebuilding Trust”. Members of his own party or, I should say, members of the former Reform Party participated in “Rebuilding Trust”. It was a very fulsome--

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

What happened to them?

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

Does the member want me to answer the question, Mr. Speaker?

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I would ask all hon. colleagues to allow the member to finish his statements in reply to the question.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Saint John, NB]

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the report formed the basis for some of what has happened in the accountability act today. The member might want to check with the hon. member from Saskatoon.

The report talked about ethics counsellors, ethics commissioners and ethics reports coming directly to Parliament. The report talked about some wide sweeping changes that needed to occur, some of the difficulties within the lobbyist industry, and regulating lobbying in this country. The Government Relations Institute of Canada has worked very hard to ensure that there is a lot of integrity within the lobby industry. I think a lot of us would have acknowledged that this is a very important and integral part of public life in this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question with respect to an aspect of Bill C-2 that we have not discussed and that is the full and open declaration of leadership contests, both who the contributors are and any notion of a limit on how much someone can contribute to a leadership race. In some cases these can be a leadership race for the Prime Minister of Canada, but in any case hold important democratic positions. I wonder if he could give us his opinion on opening up some transparency on this much needed issue.