Mr. Speaker, we are resuming debate on report stage of Bill C-61. I believe we are at the final grouping of the amendments put forward by my colleague from the Bloc, the hon. member for Lotbinière. My colleagues and I can support the two amendments because they are amendments we considered. Had not the Bloc submitted them I believe we would have introduced them.
Prior to question period I listened to debate on the two amendments by the hon. member for Prince Albert-Churchill River. I confess that I disagree with almost everything the hon. member said.
He did not seem to want more accountability in our system. He did not want public servants in quasi-judicial bodies to be accountable or more accountable to Parliament. He did not want the role of members of Parliament in committees to be increased. It seems it would be too burdensome for the hon. member and too onerous for this astute body to look into the affairs of government, hold it accountable and diligently watch what it is doing.
The red book, if I recall correctly, promised some parliamentary reform. We got into that issue to a degree earlier in question period. Perhaps it is appropriate to raise the subject at this time. The red book talked about parliamentary reform and about strengthening the roles of parliamentary committees.
The two amendments the hon. member put forward would cause the appointment of members to the tribunal to be ratified or reviewed by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. In my eyes that would seem to comply with the red book promise of giving the committees more responsibility and giving the committees a more meaningful role, making them more than window dressing as they have been notoriously described in the past.
I expected members on the other side to have applauded the proposal, but the member for Prince Albert-Churchill River seemed disconcerted by the suggestion that standing committees would have more work to do and would play a more responsible role in the life of Parliament.
The role of parliamentary committees is more of a babysitting service for Liberal backbenchers. And prior to that it was a
babysitting service for the Conservative backbenchers, something to keep them busy while those in the cabinet ran the affairs of the country, something to keep them away from the decision-making process, something to keep them away from the actual development of legislation, the meaningful review of bills in the committee and meaningful clause-by-clause study of bills and an interest builder in the actual departments of government that were held responsible to review and investigate and monitor.
In our particular committee, the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we received wrong information from the parliamentary secretary, which seems to indicate to me that the department, the minister, the parliamentary secretary, or whoever was responsible did not feel the work of the committee was that important. They did not really do their homework that well.
We went through clause by clause on Bill C-61. It was kind of a scripted thing where the member for Dauphin-Swan River jumped in at the appropriate time with the amendments that were supported by the government and Liberal members sort of turned off their minds. We could see the lights going out, that they were going to accept these amendments and no others. In fact that is why we brought our amendments to report stage rather than in the committee. Experience has taught us that introducing meaningful amendments in the committee is a waste of time. The minister is not there to review the amendments to see if they are acceptable. The government does not want any possible changes to the legislation without a lot of scrutiny. It does not trust backbenchers to have minds that could actually propose some constructive amendments in clause-by-clause or in the committee stage. This is just a make-work project for the backbenchers.
What these amendments put forward in Group 5 would in fact accomplish is the committee would have a meaningful job to do of reviewing appointments to the tribunal that would be an appeal body for the administrative monetary penalties should someone who has violated the regulations of Agriculture Canada so appeal to that tribunal. That makes a lot of sense. That is moving this House of Commons and the members of Parliament to more meaningful work, a more direct contact with the administration of government. It is more of a hands on role. It is a role with which members can go back to their constituents and say they have something to do that counts and is important.
The Liberal government does not seem willing to give the committees the added responsibility. The promises in the red book ring pretty hollow if in fact these two amendments are not passed.
The minister and his departmental officials have said that the spirit of Bill C-61 is good, that they have good intent. I believe them. I believe they have good intent. I believe they want this new process of administrative monetary penalties and compliance agreements to work to reduce the onerous burden on our justice system. I believe they do want it to work. I believe it is also paramount that in giving these powers to his department, his public servants, and to himself as minister, it is also responsible to put some parameters around that authority and responsibility that are reasonable and responsible.
In summing up my response not only to these two amendments but to the entire bill, it all fits together. What we have tried to do is build those reasonable fences around the bill that allow enough latitude within for the minister and his department to effectively administer the powers they receive under Bill C-64.
Why they would not want the committee on agriculture and agri-food to play a more meaningful role in the ratification of appointees to the tribunal is beyond my understanding. It just seems to be the mindset of this government. I think it is wrong. I think it is unfortunate. It is sad. Perhaps it is even part of the reason we are experiencing some trouble right now.
I would appeal to the minister and the members to reverse this trend, to start to make government more open, more transparent, to make the public service more accessible and accountable to not only the ministers but to all members of Parliament. Therefore, I would support these two amendments. I would heartily endorse these two amendments and ask other members in the House to do the same.