If I could use a personal example, in the last Parliament I was on the two steering committees of the two full committees I sat on. I found the steering committee to be useful in the sense that not only was priority given to prioritizing the motions, but there was also a certain sense of efficiency, because it was all done in a collaborative nature. All of the motions were brought forward. All of the issues were brought forward. It was itemized in a way that ensured that people had the opportunity to speak not only to their motions but also to the motions of their colleagues.
There was a certain efficiency that occurred, because depending on how the schedule worked and depending on how committee hearings were required per motion or per study, it was done in a very logical fashion, and in that way prepared everybody. Those discussions then were brought to the main committee because there's a representative from every party there. In my own experience, it was very efficient. It worked very logically. It was done in a very collaborative nature. Everybody had their opportunity to speak, and a lot of motions were accepted.
I think we should follow the same practice. I think that taking time away from committee meetings to do things that could be done somewhere else, especially when there's a premium on witness time.... I think it would just be more efficient if the bulk of that work were done in the steering committee. Like my colleague said, it's not binding in any way. It doesn't imprison us in terms of going in another direction, but it takes something that's more administrative away from the committee and allows us to hear more focus on the testimony of the witnesses and actually get to the heart of the matter for every study.
