Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to share with the committee that during the last Parliament, I was the chair of the special committee on the Canadian mission to Afghanistan. As a committee, we struck a subcommittee, and we did have a government member on the subcommittee. It made a tremendous difference for me as chair because I was able to remain non-partisan both at the committee meetings and at the subcommittee meetings. My role was simply to manage the meetings, not to table any kinds of suggestions from the government, not to give favour to the government side. I was neutral in all settings, in all manners, in my capacity as chair, and I had the liberty to be so because there was another government representative at the subcommittee meetings.
My concern is that if the chair has to take the government position at the subcommittee meetings, then he is acting in two different capacities for the committee, and I don't see a need to put the chair in that position. If we have a government member--now, it could be me, but it doesn't have to be me. If that's a stumbling block--“oh, we don't want the parliamentary secretary”--I'm fine with that, as long as there is a government member from the Conservative side. It should be no threat to you because you easily outvote the one single member we have there. It will be three votes to one if there is a disagreement on how to move forward.
So it's simply allowing the chair to act in a neutral capacity in all of his faculties, in all types of meetings, and it allows the government, or the Conservative side, to have its own voice without compromising the neutrality of the chair. So I actually think it's a very reasonable proposal. I don't think anybody should feel threatened by it. It's simply protecting the integrity of the chair and allowing us to have a voice in the subcommittee.
Thank you.