Mr. Chair, if I understand correctly, we are discussing the principle, not a specific motion. I am just asking.
Mr. Warawa mentioned it earlier. I would like to discuss the principle too. I have some doubts about his reasoning that this clause protects the opposition. At the moment, with a government in the minority and the opposition in the majority, but divided, this clause protects the minority government more. Government members can up and decide not to attend a meeting and so prevent witnesses from being heard.
And you can see how divided we are; not all members were here previously, and not all are here now. On this side of the table, we are not united. This motion, which is quite usual and standard in all committees, serves precisely to maintain the opposition's lack of unity. Even in a minority, the government is protected by the fact that it feels, and is, united.
I am totally opposed to withdrawing the absolute need to have a representative from the opposition. That is the basic principle, in fact; we have to give the opposition an opportunity always to be present. We know that is not going to happen on the government side, even in a minority. It could be even more of a minority and it still would never happen. If government members decide to be here, they will all be here. If they decide not to be here, none will be here. We saw an example this morning.