Madam Speaker, I was not going to rise on debate until I heard the hon. member from the Reform Party talk about Bill C-61 and try to suggest that somehow colleagues on this side of the House, because they are governing members, decided to finally pass this legislation after almost a year.
I know the hon. member came onto the standing committee on agriculture a little late. I still do not remember his taking part in any of the committee meetings dealing with Bill C-61, even though he was on that committee. The hon. member should know-and if he does not know he could talk to his colleagues who would tell him-that when the bill came in it was thoroughly debated by the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. Committee members from the government side were the ones who put forward problems they had with the bill. The bill is a good example of how the committee system around this place has worked. It goes to show how government backbench members on a committee can have some sort of say and input into the legislation.
When the bill came forward to the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food government members on the committee had many concerns. We had concerns with the bill and we informed the minister of those concerns. We outlined to the minister a number of different amendments that we wanted to the bill before we were prepared to proceed with it.
The minister, in his wisdom, took that back to his departmental officials. If we go through Bill C-61 we see a number of amendments proposed by government members, not opposition members who chose not to show up for most of the meetings. Subclause 4(d) states:
respecting the circumstances under which, the criteria by which and the manner in which a penalty may be increased or reduced, including the reduction of a penalty pursuant to a compliance agreement-
That was not in there before. Government members felt it was important enough to put in there. Subclause 4(3) states:
Without restricting the generality of the paragraph-in making regulations-
Again it talks about the degree of intention or negligence on the part of the person. That was put in there by government members on that committee.
Clause 7 deals with the issuance of a notice of violation and states that there have to be reasonable grounds to believe. That was not in there before. Government backbenchers felt it was important. We went through the legislation for months and months and months, and the Reform Party was not there to help us.
The hon. member also has the audacity to say that the government would not even look at reasonable amendments. The Reform Party's Motion No. 20 to clarify the burden of proof is the hon. member's amendment. Motion No. 28 to clarify expenses is the hon. member's amendment. Motion No. 10 is to provide assurance that a security requested by the minister in respect of compliance be reasonable. He uses the word reasonable, but the government accepted opposition amendments on this point. We have gone a long way in trying to allay the fears of members on the other side that we were not listening to their concerns on the issue.
The hon. member talks about orders in council and Standing Order 110 which he should read. It states that committees have a right to review orders in council. It is a very important right for individual members of Parliament who can review orders in council. All of us in our role of checking the executive should have the power to review. The hon. member knows that.
In terms of the legislation I had concerns, as I said. However I sat down as a chairman of a committee with the minister and with the department. They went further than I expected them to go in terms of putting forward proposals to alleviate some of my concerns and the concerns of members on the committee and members outside the committee in terms of the House committee on procedure.
We sat down with government officials at a number of different meetings and came forward with amendments that we thought were reasonable. I thank the minister of agriculture for accepting the amendments. It goes to show how well this place can work when all hon. members work together.