First of all, I'd like to have those two amendments split, because I have a different view of each of them.
On the first one, I would agree with there being a government member, because it seems fair that they be present when witnesses are heard, although I would say that in the past, if government were to try to use that provision—and I'm sure these members wouldn't—to avoid having a witness speak, then we in the opposition would just change the provision in the future. But I'm prepared to support it at this point.
On the second part, though, concerning having four present, the problem for people who have been at committees before is that sometimes you have a witness who is only of interest to a few members, and something else very critical is also going on that members have to be at. If you bring a witness from all across the country at great expense to the taxpayer and only three of us show up, I think it's still worth hearing the person; then it's in the record and people could read it anyway. Likewise, if you travel somewhere at a cost of about $5,000 a person to a place such as Cambridge Bay and only three committee members can go, I still think it's worth it to those people that they go, as opposed to having to have four members just to hear that evidence.
So it would be great if four or more could show up when witnesses are here, but I'd hate to make it mandatory to hear witnesses with four present. I think three gives us more flexibility.