I am familiar with both systems. In 1993, the Human Resources Committee had a steering committee. However, prior to the last election, the Human Resources and Social Development Committee operated as a committee of the whole. Matters did not progress any faster when we dealt with them as a committee of the whole, rather than referring them to a subcommittee. But, it is for the chair to decide how we should proceed. I would say, however, that it is a fallacy to assert that matters move more swiftly when we operate as a committee of the whole. On several occasions, it took us longer to reach a consensus on certain matters. It is a decision for the chair to make. Personally, I preferred working as part of a subcommittee; it meant that we had a better understanding of the matter when we brought it back before the committee of the whole. Some decisions were made by the committee, but some work had already been initiated by the subcommittee. It means that there are no stumbling blocks when it comes to presenting the facts to the committee of the whole. Bear in mind that, often, some members of the committee are not able to attend meetings. When some committee members only attend one or two working sessions, it makes it harder to get a handle on the issues. There are all sorts of reasons why some members are unable to attend certain meetings. The steering committee was also able to make sure that we followed up on important issues.
Mr. Chairman, I would prefer to have a steering committee, but if the majority of members are contrary-minded, I am happy to go with the flow.