Mr. Speaker, we have been considering the various amendments to Bill C-61 at report stage since 10 a.m., which has given us over four hours of very detailed discussion. For the most part, that discussion has been quite useful.
As the member for Malpeque mentioned, during the course of the debate and discussion the government has in fact accepted at least three of the proposals put forward by the opposition pertaining to various administrative matters in the legislation.
On the final two motions that are now before the House, Motions 21 and 22, I think the arguments advanced by the member for Malpeque are very convincing and sustainable arguments as to why these two motions should not be among those that are accepted.
I might elaborate on one of the reasons advanced by the hon. member for Malpeque, which is the distinction between the Canadian parliamentary system of government and the American congressional system of government.
Under the American system there is a certain method for making appointments. It involves in certain circumstances public hearings before congressional committees. In Canada traditionally we have not taken that approach. One of the reasons we have not taken that approach is the difference between the congressional system in the U.S., which has a different system of checks and balance on the whole executive authority of government, and our parliamentary system, which has a very fundamental rudder to it. You see it from your chair every day, Mr. Speaker, in question period. That is a characteristic absolutely unique to our system.
Members of the U.S. cabinet never have to appear in a public forum like the House of Commons. They appear from time to time in carefully controlled circumstances before congressional committees. Members of the American cabinet are not members of the American Congress and therefore are not present in either the Senate or the House of Representatives. They are aloof, separate and apart from the legislative branch of the American government.
The Americans have an array of checks and balances they believe holds their system together quite appropriately. That is their system. It is a different system. They do not have the open forum of Parliament in which every day Parliament sits the ministers of the crown are in the House to face the accountability of the opposition in the open question period. It is a unique feature of our system, one that argues very well for our system as compared to theirs.
That distinction, among others, is one of the reasons we should reject the kind of administrative suggestions proposed in these two motions and stick to the bill as it is presently before the House.
Earlier in the day the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster raised questions about certain comments made in committee by my parliamentary secretary. I answered fully those questions with respect to the views expressed by my parliamentary secretary. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster has once again in his most recent intervention repeated the allegations without indicating that those allegations have already been completely and fully answered in the House. They ought not to be repeated without the indication that they have been answered. I answered them earlier today. He was not paying attention.
The hon. gentleman also engaged in general criticism. I hope he did not mean it seriously. It was general criticism about the conduct of government members with respect to the work done on the bill in committee.
From my experience as a minister the government members who worked very hard on the bill took their responsibility very seriously. Apart from the hours they spent working on the bill in committee, they spent additional hours doing their homework in their offices, writing letters, asking questions, getting answers and understanding the legislation so that when they went to the committee they were well prepared to deal with the issues in a thoroughly conscientious and efficient manner.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster criticized them for being "well organized". I commend our members for being well organized. I know the depth in which they studied the legislation because I was the one inundated by their questions as to how to put the legislation together in the best and most proper fashion.
Government members have done extraordinarily well in ensuring the legislation came out in a way which serves the national interest.