The issue, as we said, of who's going be there is for us to decide, and Bernard Patry has said it. That's fine, we agree to that. I still have a difficulty here with the argument that we need only four people on the subcommittee because we are talking about issues and then it comes down to the main committee to decide. However, let me just point out that the subcommittee does vote on issues to bring in front of the main committee. The subcommittee does vote: do you agree to that?
Therefore, since this subcommittee has the power to strike the agenda that will and will not come in here, it is going to need to be reflective of the composition of this committee sitting right here--one, two, three, four, five, six, and one, two, three, four, five, six. That should also be on that subagenda and reflect that, because the business that comes over there comes from this thing.
Now, I see the foreign affairs critic...because he thinks he's such a high guy and doesn't like to discuss this issue; it's good enough. But I would say this: because we discuss issues and there is a possibility, a strong possibility, when certain things that come on the agenda are not discussed, then I say, reflective of this, that this committee should be reflective of the House of Commons. It would then require two members from the government, the chair, and one each from there. That would be six there and six on this side. That's the way it should be. And if I'm not mistaken, that should also be in the bylaw, and reflective of it.