Bill C-2 · 39th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Federal Accountability Act
An Act providing for conflict of interest rules, restrictions on election financing and measures respecting administrative transparency, oversight and accountability
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedApril 11, 2006
- Debated in principleApril 27, 2006
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberJune 21, 2006
- Passed the second chamberNov. 8, 2006
- Became lawDec. 11, 2006
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Donald H. OliverSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Richard NadeauStates the Bloc is in favour of the principle of the accountability act.
- Peter JulianRises in support of this important legislation on behalf of the NDP.
- John BairdMoves the bill forward and emphasizes cleaning up government as promised.
- Pierre PoilievrePraises the bill as the toughest anti-corruption law and says the promise to pass it will be kept.
- Stephen OwenStates that the official opposition supports the bill and generally supports the accountability act.
- Rob NicholsonDefends the bill and addresses criticisms while speaking positively about its context.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
That Bill C-2 · 2006-06-21 · Passed
How it changed on the way
76% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (87,454 words introduced, 65,924 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its main goals on conflict rules, election finance limits and accountability but saw 76 percent of the text rewritten with added bodies under oversight and adjusted officer powers. Several sections on appointments, prosecutions and reviews were dropped or reworded while new reporting duties and transitional rules were inserted.
- Access to Information Act coverage shifted from seven Crown corporations to parent corporations plus the Canadian Wheat Board.
Before: “Part 3 also amends the Access to Information Act to add five officers, seven Crown corporations and three foundations to Schedule I”
After: “to add five officers, five foundations and the Canadian Wheat Board to Schedule I of that Act”
- Public Sector Integrity Commissioner protection wording narrowed from all Canadians to all Canadians not only public servants.
Before: “(b) provide for the protection of all Canadians, not just public servants, who report government wrongdoings to the Public Sector Integrity Commis”
After: “(b) provide for the protection of all Canadians, not only public servants, who report government wrongdoings to the Public Sector Integrity Commis”
- New five-year lobbying ban and publication rules added for former designated public office holders.
After: “88.1 Five-year prohibition — lobbying 88.2 Publication”
How precisely it is written
vagueChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The text mixes fixed numbers and defined terms with repeated subjective tests that turn on what the Commissioner or a reasonable observer thinks. This leaves core prohibitions open to argument rather than settling them by clear rules.
Open to argument
“could reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the candidate”
Uses an objective-sounding but fact-specific reasonableness test that invites prolonged debate over motive and perception.“in the opinion of the Commissioner, the assets are of such minimal value”
Grants the Commissioner unilateral discretion to decide when a rule applies, replacing a fixed threshold.“might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence the public office holder”
Same reasonableness standard applied to gifts, again turning on perception rather than a bright-line rule.“the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds”
Condition for suspending an examination rests on the official's own assessment of grounds, creating broad enforcement discretion.
Clear-cut
“having so cohabited for a period of at least one year”
Supplies a fixed, objective time period that removes doubt about who qualifies as a common-law partner.“who has not reached the age of 18 years”
Uses a clear numerical age cutoff for dependent children.“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”
States exact limitation periods in calendar years rather than vague standards.
Discretion. Extensive power is left to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to decide appropriate measures, order divestment or recusal, waive limits, and determine what information is necessary, with only limited statutory constraints.
Challenging the law itself. The repeated use of 'reasonably be seen' and 'in the opinion of' standards engages the vagueness and overbreadth doctrines under section 7 of the Charter, though the presence of some defined terms may blunt the claim.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused can readily dispute whether a gift or decision 'might reasonably be seen' to influence duties or whether the Commissioner properly exercised discretion, turning each case into a factual and perceptual argument.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.