Actually, I'm not so sure that the intention on my part is that one side can block the other. I think what this really comes down to is that when the committee is hearing testimony from a witness pertaining to a bill or a study, at some point in time that report or that bill will come up for votes. And I think it's incumbent that at least one person from either side of the table has the opportunity to attend every meeting so that we can get it right so the testimony that was heard at that reduced-quorum meeting can be accurately reflected, discussed, and debated.
I couldn't imagine simply relying on the Hansard statements to capture the entire nuance of a witness's testimony. There are lots of other things that need to be taken into consideration when a witness is here. For example, if there are any visual aids, those things aren't captured; if there are any nuances in tone or context, those things aren't captured either.
From my perspective, I think it would be handy to have at least one opposition member present and one member from the governing party present, so that when that testimony is heard, even if it is in a reduced quorum, the entirety of it can be discussed. We often meet as a group to discuss whether or not the testimony is accurately reflected in the blues or in the Hansard, whether it is accurately reflected or captured in a report, or in an amendment to a bill. And I think it's particularly unfair to either side, frankly, that the testimony could be given, could be heard, could be recorded without the presence of at least one member from either side of this table.