I would just like to point out that when committees were setting up, I talked with my staff and checked to see when we were originally to set up. I found out that it was Thursday, the end of the week, and I thought, “Good, everything will be worked out in the other committees”. If there was any friction, I thought, it would be solved because other committees would have gone through the same procedures and would have been through it.
I checked to see what other committees had done. Mr. Allen's proposal currently on the table is more generous to the opposition than Mr. Anderson's original one, so remember that. Mr. Anderson's original proposal for the same time allocation was adopted by the justice committee and the international trade committee. So it was adopted by at least two committees and very possibly more. I know of at least two that adopted Mr. Anderson's original proposal. So the Liberal members on the justice and international trade committees, and the Bloc members and the NDP members on both those committees, both of which are historically more controversial than this committee, thought that was fine. On those two committees, the opposition parties, all three of them, thought it was fine. That was Mr. Anderson's original proposal.
The human resources and immigration committees evidently took the slightly amended formula, whereby we moved the NDP, with the Conservatives, toward the end, and they were fine with it. So in at least four other committees, and possibly more, the opposition was willing to agree to a proposal less generous to themselves than what is currently on the table here.
What I do not understand is why it was acceptable for the parties in those situations to accept that, but here it is not. I doubt if I'll get an answer, but I would like an answer from each of the other three parties. It's their choice if they want to add comments on that. In those four committees, why was it fine for all of them to go there, but here in this situation it is not? Also, this is even with a slightly more generous proposal now on the table here than the one that had been previously altered.
One of my concerns is the way this is going to be set up. Most weeks, I won't get to ask questions, or one member here or there won't get to, and there are things in which one is interested for one's constituency more than anything else. This actually has to be taken seriously.
The other thing that should be noted is that historically this is not a legislatively heavy committee. I doubt if this will change in this Parliament. There was not a lot of controversial stuff. As was noted earlier, we had a unanimous report on the forestry industry. It was unanimous. I don't think there was even a single recommendation where there was a minority report. That was amazing. It helped people in all ridings.
If we take on an issue like mining, all parties have constituencies with mining interests, and individual members will want to go back and say, “Look, this is what I've done”. We need things for individual members to take back to their ridings to show what they've done. It's something that can work for members in all parties.
I urge the members across the aisle to look to the leadership shown in the human resources committee, the justice committee, the international trade committee, and the immigration committee. Our proposals are not objectionable to your party in those committees. I'm at a loss to understand why an even more generous offer here seems to be objectionable.