I would like to add that my issue is not about our deciding how we work, when we work and all of that. It's about invoking a section of the Standing Orders, a standing order that I don't think applies.
Absolutely, we could do this—I'm not against it—but I get a little confused. Mr. Genuis said we could have a situation where a majority of the committee wants to meet and the chair won't let it meet. That's quite different from Standing Order 106(4), which is not a majority of the committee.
I think we should take our time on these things. We should do it well. If this committee wants to set a rule requiring meetings to happen should two, three, four, five, six or seven members of the committee want to meet, that's fine. However, it's invoking that we should apply a section, a standing order; that's my issue. I know I get a bit fundamentalist about this, but the Standing Orders are there to protect us, to help us do our work. If they're in the way of a special committee doing its work, I'm happy to find a way around the fact that this doesn't apply in order to do our work well. That's my point. I know it sounds arcane, but I want to make sure....
If the whole part about Standing Order 106(4) were withdrawn and it was “here is an idea that we do”, I would be fine with it. I just don't think we have the power to demand that a standing order be applied to our work if it doesn't apply.