Thank you, Mr. Chair.
My experience is that these committees will only function if there's goodwill on both sides. Mr. Martin is correct in his assumption and in his point that no motions would be allowed to pass. But let's be very fair. This is a committee that is chaired by the opposition, so it stands to reason that in our rules and consistent with those rules they would word it that one member of the opposition be there.
I think it's very clear that this is simply, and I'll reiterate the point, to have testimony given. If we have a meeting and none of the people can show up, at least the business of the committee cannot be interrupted by what could be dilatory actions. I'm not suggesting for a moment that we shouldn't, for instance, deal with the issue of government members, but it's very clear that this is a sort of de minimis approach to why, I believe, this is here.
Unless I'm given some extenuating reasons, I see no reason to change it, given that the committee is composed very much, by our own rules, as one chaired by the opposition. I think it's consistent with the nature of this committee.
I will admit to you that not since 1994 have I sat on a committee that is governed by the opposition, so I'm still finding my way on this. I think the rule is good and I would probably leave it to work. But for the record, I would suggest that if we run into trouble, we should have the decency to go in camera and talk about this; maybe we can resolve it further down the road. I'm willing to do that.