I was counting up as I was preparing my thoughts on this. I think I've been on six standing committees since I was elected in 2000. With the exception of a short period of time in the public safety committee, all of them had steering committees. They were a major time saver.
I say that because of the one experience I had on public safety when we didn't have a steering committee. It seemed, as you suggested, Mr. Chair, that you ended up with everybody on the main committee putting in their comments. What would take 15 minutes in a steering committee would take an hour in a full committee. It's a major time saver.
I think the point that Mr. Trost raised, though, is a valid one, to this extent. I know there were committees where the division between the members, oftentimes because of personality clashes as opposed to ideological or philosophical ones, was so bad that whatever was determined in the steering committee ended up in full debate when it came for ratification to the full committee. So that was a waste of time, and I think if we had that kind of committee, I'd be on Mr. Trost's side.
The history of this committee, though--and Mr. Kramp has made this point--is just the opposite. The collegiality that has gone on in this committee was the same in the 2000-2004 period when we had a majority government. It was the same at that time.
In those circumstances, the steering committees work very well. They facilitate things. They save a lot of time for the full committee, so it's well worth doing, and I think this is one of the committees where it's appropriate.