The last thing I'd add is that Chris's last point isn't really fair, because with a reduced quorum you really can't vote on things, can you? You can only hear witnesses. The idea of allowing a reduced quorum in these rules is so that we don't completely waste a meeting just because too few members show up. You can still hear the testimony of witnesses, but you can't move motions and you can't vote on anything until you get your full quorum back, which would have representation of the other side. This is really only for the purposes of hearing testimony.
The last point I'd make is that your side, Chris, has five members. The odds of getting one here are greater than for us, who have only two, and this other party, who have only two, and the Liberals, who have—and so on. Really, I think you are covered; it does preclude the possibility.
Nobody wants a repeat of the last Parliament, in which many of the committees were almost rendered dysfunctional. I know your committee was not one of those, but some were, and we want to preclude that.