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

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

That is sheer hypocrisy. Worse yet, not only did they vote against establishing the minimum age of 18 to make legal financial contributions to political parties, but the NDP member for Winnipeg South had the gall to table an amendment which would have allowed newborn babies to make donations to political parties.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I have to be able to hear the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and there are some members in the House who are making it very difficult for me to do that. I would appreciate a little of order from all parties on all sides of the House so that we can finish hearing the hon. for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

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

Mr. Speaker, to the credit of the Conservative members sitting on the committee, who finally found an ounce of decency and honesty within them, they voted against the amendment of the NDP member for Winnipeg Centre. That was only after an impassioned speech by the four Liberal members and the two Bloc members. Only then were we able to convince the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Treasury Board, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, a third parliamentary secretary and the two little backbenchers. However, I am pleased.

I hope the second chamber of sober thought, the other place, when it receives Bill C-2, will examine the possibility of instituting amendments to the bill, which would deal with floor-crossing and which would establish a minimum age for making legal contributions to political parties.

Having dealt with those two issues, I cannot stop myself from saying this. At times when I listened to the member for Winnipeg Centre and some of the government members who sat on the legislative committee on Bill C-2, in their overblown hyperbole of righteous indignation about whether it was political financing, it reminded me of two very famous films. One will date me, the other one will not.

Elmer Gantry was played by that wonderful American actor Burt Lancaster. Anyone who saw it will remember that Elmer Gantry was a preacher. He had the golden word and was able to seduce people into believing what he had to say by using those buzz words that capture the hearts and minds of ordinary, good, decent people. However, Elmer Gantry was a faker. Elmer Gantry was a seller of snake oil. Elmer Gantry was out for Elmer Gantry, like the so-called five priorities of the Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party, can talk about accountability, transparency, oversight, but when one looks at some of the provisions of Bill C-2, they in fact create more secrecy. More power is concentrated in the centre, or for those who do not know, the executive, or the Prime Minister and his little gang. It has absolutely nothing to do with accountability. It has everything to do with trying to pull the wool over the eyes of ordinary, decent Canadians that it is the party of openness and transparency.

We have already heard of some of the first decisions taken by the Prime Minister. What was one of his first decisions? Was it to appoint an non-elected individual to his cabinet and to the Senate, the very Senate the Prime Minister, when in opposition, denounced day after day, year after year. He said that it was not a valid chamber because it was not elected, it was not democratic. He said that if he ever came to government, he would abolish it or create an elected Senate. His first act was to appoint a non-elected individual to the Senate and then to bring that person into his cabinet.

Where is the accountability? I forgot, that individual was a major fundraiser, if not the chief fundraiser for the Conservative Party in Quebec. Where is the accountability there? Where is the transparency? Where is the oversight?

Ministers of cabinet are supposed to be accountable to Parliament. They are supposed to be accountable in the House of Commons. That minister is not accountable here. He may not step foot in the House. He is not allowed to step foot in the House. He is not permitted to take part in question period, as members of the Conservative Party know very well.

So much for accountability. So much for transparency. So much for oversight. Hello, that is the Conservative Party, the snake oil seller, the Elmer Gantry of 2006.

Let us talk about another movie that might ring a bell, The Nutty Professor. The original starring Jerry Lewis, considered to be one of the greatest actors by the French in France. There was a remake starring Eddie Murphy, so the younger crowd will also know The Nutty Professor.

Anyone who saw the original or the remake will remember that there is the archetypical villain and that was Buddy. Buddy was good looking. Buddy was a sweet talker. Buddy could seduce anyone with his sweet-talking and make them believe anything, but Buddy was found out in the end.

I must say that when I listen to the Conservatives spin out their line on accountability, transparency, integrity, and ethics, their own conduct belies every single one of those fundamental principles, and I am reminded of Buddy. We must not forget Buddy's demise. Everyone ended up seeing through him.

I would like to get to a couple of points within the legislation which we Liberals and the Bloc members feel are very important. I believe the NDP believes at least one point is important as well. The first is the public appointments commission.

I know that the member for Halifax, the former leader of the NDP, raised the point. Another member of the NDP, who is currently in the House, also asked questions about the Public Appointments Commission. He asked the government, specifically the government whip, whether the Prime Minister intended to implement this commission and proceed with appointments once Bill C-2 is passed in the Senate, has received royal assent and is in effect.

It was interesting to hear the government whip's answer. He blathered on that a standing committee of the House had done its duty, which was to review the appointment that the Prime Minister had made prematurely, because the act was not even in effect. The Prime Minister had the arrogance—the only word I can use that is parliamentary and acceptable in this House—to appoint an individual to the position of chairperson of the Public Appointments Commission before the commission was even in place, before it was even a legal entity. What arrogance.

In spite of this, the committee duly welcomed the appointment, summoned this man, Gwyn Morgan, to appear, proceeded to examine his credentials and qualifications and determined, in its judgment, that he was not qualified to occupy the future position of chairperson of the Public Appointments Commission.

When Bill C-2 was referred to the legislative committee created specially to study it, only one clause in the bill dealt with this Public Appointments Commission, which, according to the Conservatives and the Prime Minister, was nonetheless the cornerstone of their policy of integrity, accountability, and so on.

That one clause, number 228, the only text about that institution that is so important to the Conservative policy, can be found on page 175. It amended section 1.1 as follows:

The Governor in Council may establish a Public Appointments Commission, consisting of a chairperson and not more than four other members—

The bill said nothing about the commission's mandate, powers or objectives—nothing.

An NDP member who sat on the committee, the member for Winnipeg Centre, introduced a motion, an amendment, as did the Liberals.

Since my time has run out, I will conclude by saying that thanks to the opposition members, the Public Appointments Commission will have real powers. I strongly encourage the other place to have a look at page 148, clause two-twenty-some—

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Halifax.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, there were a number of things that the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has touched upon but time does not permit following all those rabbit tracks.

I want to raise a question because I am genuinely puzzled. I was not on the committee so I do not know everything that went on. I will certainly acknowledge that. Nobody following this debate from their living rooms tonight would find it surprising that not everyone here knows every word of debate that goes on in committee, but I am surprised by a perception that may have been created.

Perhaps she would like to take the opportunity to correct the perception, if in fact it is not accurate, and the really quite stunning revelation that one of her Liberal colleagues who is seeking the leadership of her party, the member for Eglinton--Lawrence, had actually accepted campaign donations from 11 year old twins and their 14 year old brother.

I think this really shook a lot of people's confidence in what kinds of rules and regulations exist with respect to the accountability for campaign contributions. I know that has seen a lot of resistance from both the Conservative Party and Liberal Party for any kind of restrictions on leadership campaigns.

I wonder if the member would clarify whether she feels that it is perfectly all right for the intent and the spirit, if not the letter, of existing restrictions on campaign donations to have been violated by contributions from 11 year old twins and their 14 year old brother whose father just happened to be a corporate mogul who was supporting this leadership aspirant.

Does she have a problem with that or does she not, and does she think there should be some attempt to establish some guidelines that would make sense?

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say how happy I am that the member asked me this question. I thought I had covered it in my introductory remarks, but she has allowed me the opportunity to go at it a second time, to ensure that everyone in this chamber and anyone who is watching understands.

Not only did I have a problem with it, I had such a problem that I brought an amendment to Bill C-2 to establish the minimum legal age to donate to be 18. What was my surprise? The member for Winnipeg Centre, who is the colleague of the member for Halifax of the NDP who just asked me this question, voted against that amendment. He is the same person who stood in this chamber day after day, saying it was reprehensible of that leadership candidate to accept donations from 11 year old twins and a 14 year old. He voted against the Liberal amendment which would have established 18 years of age as the minimum age to legally donate.

That is the first thing. I could not understand it. How hypocritical to stand here and denounce the Liberals because one member accepted donations, which were legal by the way, and then when a Liberal member attempts to correct it, he votes against it.

However, he then went even further. He tabled his own amendment which would have allowed day-old babies to donate legally. I would like that member to explain to me how she could condone her own colleague putting an amendment through that would have allowed day-old babies to donate.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the generalities presented by the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine and her reviews of two American movies. I would like to point out that there are also good Quebec movies produced by the film industry, sometimes with grants from Canadian Heritage.

In 2004 and 2006, after a career as an engineer, I stood for election. I truly believe in democracy and I wish to participate in the democratic way so that as many citizens as possible can participate in our Parliament.

I was struck by the fact that, in general, politicians were held in low regard. I arrived on the heels of the sponsorship scandal and revelations about various other corrupt government practices. I am referring primarily to the appointment of returning officers, until now, by the Prime Minister's office .

I could talk about all the outrageous things that were done in my riding to prevent constituents from voting because a well-known Liberal was the returning officer. I am most satisfied with this aspect of the bill. I would like to hear the member's views on this important reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I share the hon. member's opinion entirely regarding the excellent movies made in Quebec. I am very proud of them, being a Quebecker myself. However, those two American movies perfectly illustrate my point. I am glad, in a sense, that we do not have Quebec movies that portray such hypocrites, like the characters in the two movies I mentioned.

As for the returning officers, I fully support the notion of granting the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada the power and authority to appoint returning officers in the ridings. I am a Quebecker and live under the Quebec Election Act, under which, the Quebec chief electoral officer makes the appointments in the ridings.

When I began my political career in 1997, the returning officer in my riding had been appointed by my predecessor. Not only did he not give me any preferential treatment, he definitely got in my way on certain occasions.

It is not because someone is appointed by a predecessor from the same party that that person is going be partisan. I am, therefore, happy about this change.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for her fine oratory skills in outlining the massive deficits in Bill C-2.

It is interesting that with a title like “public accountability”, who could possibly disagree with that? One could only disagree with the bill if the bill did not deal with public accountability.

The major flaw and the big lie with respect to this bill, because let us call what it is, it is an effort to tie the whole bill into the big lie which will somehow lambaste the previous government and the Liberal Party for being corrupt, which everybody knows is not true. The reality is vastly different. However, to the government's credit, it successfully rode on that pony to government and history is what it was.

This is a much more serious issue than petty politics because this bill, if passed, will have a profound impact upon the lives of Canadians and the functioning of our public service.

If this bill were to improve the public service and improve accountability, that would be a useful thing. I venture to say that the bill has nothing to do with accountability because true public accountability is the obligation on the part of elected officials and senior government officials to tell the public what they are doing.

Does the hon. member not think that this bill would cause gridlock in the public service by all the--

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry but I do have to allow the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine time enough to respond to the comment.

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, I do believe the bill would create a gridlock.

Expert witnesses have said that many of the new structures that have been put into place did not need to be put into place. The new authorities, if that was what the government wanted to create, could have easily been embedded in existing structures. I will give two examples.

The first example is the public appointments commission. We have the Public Service Commission which already has expertise in establishing criteria for hiring, for promotion, et cetera, within the public service. The Liberals proposed amendments that would have taken the authority of the public appointments commission and embedded that into the Public Service Commission. The government and the NDP voted against those amendments.

The second example is the public servants disclosure protection tribunal. We had unions telling us that should go to the Canadian Industrial Relations Board because it has the expertise. The government and the NDP voted against that. They preferred to create an entirely new structure.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from St. Catharines.

I have been sitting here listening to the members on that side of the House for the last three months and I have come to the conclusion that they do not really know or understand why they are sitting on that side of the House. They think they have some divine right wherever they are and do not understand why they are sitting on the opposite side of the House. Perhaps I should remind them that on January 23, Canadians sent them a message and sent them into the opposition, out of the government, because Canadians lost trust in those people.

I do not understand how they can sit over there as if nothing has happened and keep puffing their chests and screaming at all these things. It is all absolute nonsense. Perhaps they should look at themselves in the mirror and try to analyze why they are sitting over there. Your own leadership candidates are now questioning what you were doing sitting over there for the last 12 years.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The member will please address his remarks through the Chair and not directly to members of the House.

[Deepak Obhrai, Conservative, Calgary East, AB]

Sometimes we get carried away, Mr. Speaker.

Those members are sitting over there for the simple reason that they do not understand accountability. Their record on accountability was so bad that Canadians were fed up and voted them out of office. We just have to look at what happened in the Gomery inquiry. The member said that there was no corruption in the Liberal Party. If there was no corruption why was there a Gomery inquiry? Why did the previous prime minister try to distance himself from the sponsorship scandal? Where did the money go? Why did the Liberal Party return the money to the government? The Liberals returned $700,000 because they said they had taken it. That is the issue today.

On January 23, Canadians decided to give the Conservatives a chance. We stood up for our priorities. We told Canadians what we stood for. We had no hidden agenda. We promised Canadians this bill and we are delivering. As the President of Treasury Board said, this accountability bill is one of the toughest in the western hemisphere. It brings accountability back to politics, back to running the government.

We just heard about a leadership candidate going after children. That is how much nonsense this has become. The last speaker stood up and tried to defend this by saying that she brought in an amendment to raise the age to 18. I did not hear her say one word about condemning that leadership candidate. I did not hear her say that he was wrong. Why could she not stand up publicly and say that the leadership candidate was wrong? She then pretended that she was now bringing accountability into this thing. She had every opportunity when she was in government to bring in accountability but at that time she found it difficult to do so. However, not the Conservative government.

The member for Halifax tried to put us in the same light as the Liberals when she said that we had no rules for leadership races. She should look at the accountability act under “Reforming the Financing of Political Parties”. It is very clear. I hope her party will support this. It is quite simple. A candidate in a nomination contest or a party leadership candidate cannot receive more than $1,000 in contributions. If that is not accountability, then what is? This is an attempt by the Conservative Party to bring some semblance here. It would take away the influence of business. We know of Liberal cronyism. We must not forget the Dingwall affair and the culture of entitlement that went on for 13 years.

The accountability act would bring Canadians' confidence back because politicians will finally be accountable to the people. They would no longer be accountable to special interest groups or to people who give large donations. The bill is a direct result of the Liberal sponsorship scandal.

I am pleased to say that the Conservative Party is fulfilling its promise and we are delivering on what we said in the election. That is foreign to members of the Liberal Party. They promised so much but what did they deliver? They delivered nothing.

The Liberal candidate was going after children and of course it was quite amusing to see the member from Winnipeg telling him, “Please don't go to schools. Don't attack my children”.

However, on a serious note, the accountability act will bring in what Canadians were asking for. They were looking forward to relying on politicians and those who govern them to do that. They send us their tax dollars without question, but they want us to use them carefully. That is what this accountability act is.

I am extremely happy and proud to be associated with a government that has brought such a strong accountability act forward, but there is more than that, because what we promised is what we have delivered: our five priorities. The opposition may not like it, but the fact of the matter is that this is what we told Canadians and that is what we have delivered.

On July 1 we will have a GST cut of 1%. That is what we promised. It was not what the Liberals promised in 1993, which was that they were going to scrap the GST. We said we would cut it and on July 1 we will cut it.

I also am very happy to note that Liberal Party and of course the NDP were out there saying they opposed the budget, everything in the budget, yet when the budget bill came to the House, they passed it. Some may want to say that they were sleeping. Others may want to say that on the issues they do not know what they are doing and they do not know what they are talking about.

Again, they go out there and they tell Canadians “this is what we stand for”. Then when we look at the record of what they have done, it is absolutely the opposite. One would wonder: if they were so opposed to this budget, why did they pass the budget unanimously? That is because they know the budget is good. We want to thank them for passing the budget.

I am happy to say that I am very proud to be associated with this government that is bringing forward this accountability act and bringing back to the Canadian people the power to make politicians accountable.