Mr. Chair, I think I understand what my colleague Mr. Galipeau is trying to say. There must be at least one member from the government party and one from the opposition. The idea here is to make committee work easier, to hear from witnesses and to publish what we have heard. This is not about making decisions or passing motions. This is strictly about making the work easier. The intent is for us not to look stupid if people come to testify from Yukon, for example, and we do not have a quorum because something else is going on. We have to avoid situations like that and make sure that we can hear the witnesses.
If we are starting to say that there has to be a government majority on the committee, what is going to happen when four opposition members show up but only three government party members do? They would not have a majority then. Does that mean that we could not have the meeting? That gets a little awkward. I agree that there must be at least one person from the government side—and I would add it here—and at least one member from the opposition side. But going any further would start to get complicated and could tie our hands. I think we need to stay away from that, given that we are not talking about meetings where decisions are made. We have to keep the quorum the same as it is at present for all committees.