Fine. I can understand that she wants to clarify the situation. Then, that would mean that this motion amends another. I don't have any problem with having three members of the committee present, but why must there absolutely be one member from the opposition and one government member?
We must hold a meeting on the condition that three members of the committee be present, period. If, at some point, someone wants to boycott a meeting, government members simply have to stay away, and we will not be able to hold a meeting. Why not specify: « that three members be present », and leave it at that?