I disagree with the subamendment that's been proposed for all the reasons that Mr. Harris essentially said.
To add to that a bit, having the two-party requirement is already substantially beyond what applies to every other standing committee. That's number one.
Number two, when you are summoning a committee and the logistics involved in getting the letter together, it may be that there is a member who would support it but isn't able to sign it on short notice, or there may be a member who is more neutral on the question.
The requirement that you would need to have three parties agree before even calling a meeting seems a bit much to me. If you have two parties who say this merits an emergency meeting, then after they get together, other members who are maybe a little more on the fence can listen to the arguments. I think Mr. Bergeron's proposal here is very reasonable.
It's water in our wine, because it's a step back from what 106(4) says. I'm very happy to accept that amendment, but the subamendment is a bridge too far. It looks like you're trying to make it as hard as possible to call one of these emergency meetings. I think it is reasonable that there be a reasonable mechanism for those meetings to be called.