That is not a good argument. I have rarely seen highly partisan discussions at the subcommittee. We have all of the agricultural issues before us and we virtually always agree on which ones should be given priority.
If I or someone else who sat on the subcommittee, like Mr. Bezan or Mr. Ritz before him, could list a single time when overly partisan arguments interfered with or blocked the subcommittee, perhaps we could revisit the way we do things. On the contrary, it has always worked well.
Moreover, our new chair, Larry, has been sitting on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food for a very long time. So it is not a problem for him at all. He won't be surprised by the issues to be discussed. After that, we will come back to the main committee, we will outline the discussions held in the subcommittee, and we will discuss it all again. At that point, if the parliamentary secretary, the government members or any member of the committee want to add their two cents' worth, we will discuss it.
I have never encountered any problems. So I do not see why we should change the way we work.