[Inaudible--Editor]...I still go back. I'm not going to die on it; I'm just going to make the point, just to follow up.
I agree with you, Mr. Christopherson, that we have the responsibility to be here or have someone else be here. If I had come from across Canada or from somewhere else, had brought my resource people, was sitting as a witness, and there were the chair and one person on each side, I'd think that maybe my contribution wasn't that important to the committee.
I think the obligation actually reflects back to us. We have an obligation. Should an emergency come up that shuts us down, then we have to do it; I mean, if a vote shows up. But if a caucus decides to have something for its members, they have to make the decision on whether they're going to leave somebody at an important meeting or not. It won't affect everyone, whether it's your caucus or ours.
My point is that I just don't think we're reflecting to the public and to our witnesses the sincerity that we've talked about here in terms of being receptive to hearing people who come to us with their issues. I just think expanding this one where we have the chair, because we have said the chair should be non-partisan in all the subcommittees and here....
I don't think ending up with two people reflects well. I would move that we add one person and leave the wording as it is--“and one member of the opposition”--so that it doesn't get into those concerns you raised, David. That's all.