Mr. Chairman, I will make just one point about the brief statement you opened with.
What you read out loud was that the Speaker—or in your case, the chair who was acting in the same role as the Speaker—would feel compelled to vote with the status quo in the event of motions.
My argument would be that the Speaker actually has an obligation to vote in such a way so as to continue the debate, or allow the debate to carry on, if the gathering—whether it's the House or this committee—is unable to come to a conclusion. In other words, if we're split and divided, your obligation would be to allow that motion to continue to be debated further: to get to the House of Commons and be debated at the report stage.
So I would say that in the event of a tie, the Speaker should vote for any amendment, in order to allow debate to continue on that amendment in the House. If you voted against and that amendment went down, after the fact it would not be allowed to be reintroduced in the House. So I think the inverse of what you read would be more to the point.