Thank you.
This is an interesting discussion. Mr. Trudeau just mentioned a history of the government blocking listening to the witnesses. In fact, Chair, that has not happened. It has been the other way around, where the opposition has tried to block the hearing.
As I said about five minutes ago, we had witnesses lined up and sitting in their chairs, and it was the opposition that said we are changing the agenda and we are not going to hear from the witnesses; we have a new agenda. That was the 39th Parliament. That's behind us. Hopefully it doesn't happen.
The fingers are being pointed at the government as the body that would possibly be creating the problem. I think the argument can go both ways. Hopefully that was in the past, and hopefully we can work together. I think there is agreement around this table that witnesses, when they are invited, should be heard, and that the government and opposition should not object to hearing from the witnesses. It should go both ways. I'm assuming that we're starting off with goodwill and that the rules apply both to opposition members and to the government side.
Now what we have before us in this motion is a clarification at the end: “including one member of the opposition”. If that were struck and it read “that the chair be authorized to hold meetings to receive evidence and to have that evidence printed when a quorum is not present, providing at least three members are present”, period, that would deal with the concern that's been expressed. The rules apply for both sides, so the witnesses can be heard, providing there are three members here. We are then in a position of trust to one another.
So I would then move that the last phrase, “including one member of the opposition”, be struck, and we can move on.