I just want to respond to some of Mr. Norlock's comments. Without getting too deep into democratic theory, it's pretty clear the makeup of the House is different from the last House, and I have no problem with the subcommittee reflecting that. So the proposal to have five members, including two Conservatives, added to the chair and vice-chairs is reasonable.
The problem I see goes back to this issue of the parliamentary secretary, Mr. McKay's comments about the role of committees being the voice of members of Parliament. A parliamentary committee is not a subcommittee of government. It does not have to reflect the government's wishes.
That doesn't mean we're set up in opposition to the government. This is not an opposition party; this is a subcommittee of individual, private members of the House of Commons. The government has chosen to put the parliamentary secretary on this committee, and we can't stop that. We can argue about it for the reasons I stated in terms of deciding what this committee is going to study, the details of when we hold meetings, whether we hold meetings or not, at what time we hold meetings, what witnesses to call, and what objects to study, etc. The organizing of our business is something that should be up to the committee members themselves and not be a function of government or a subcommittee of government.
With respect, Mr. Norlock, I think the analogy to municipal government subcommittees is not a good one. This is the legislative body. Mr. Alexander is part of the executive and this is not a subcommittee of the executive of government. It has nothing to do with Mr. Alexander as Mr. Alexander but with the theory of government that we're talking about. We have very strong objections to this, and we think the committee.... As Mr. McKay said, each committee has its own history and its own culture, in a way. I think, Mr. Bezan, you recognize that from other committees you were on. I haven't been around as long as Mr. McKay, but I do know that in this committee there was a great deal of mutual respect across the way. I was in the position that Mr. McKay was in, as a sole member. There were two other parties on this side of the House, and the only witnesses are Ms. Gallant and the clerk, but I had to say that I was treated with respect by the chair and as part of the committee. I got to play a fulsome role. I think that has been the nature of this committee and I hope it will continue.
We got along very well without having the parliamentary secretary on the committee, and I don't t think the committee, even with a majority in the opposition, was one that sought to play a role in opposition to the government. We studied issues that were of importance to members of the committee and presented reports. We listened to briefings and did some travel. We were working on a number of topics, all without the need for a parliamentary secretary to be on the steering committee, and we felt that was important to our independence.
So I think this is an important point for our committee. If we're going to continue to have this collegiality while doing important work for Parliament and for the people, then it can be done better, frankly, without having a parliamentary secretary there on behalf of the government.