As you say, the committee would have a macroeconomic mandate. It could give its work as much scope as it wants or, in some cases, conduct a more thorough study. I was talking about considerations like government purchases. There are only 308 MPs. If we leave out parliamentary secretaries, chair occupants, party leaders, whips, and so on, who's left to sit on the committees? If we divide the number of MPs by the number of existing committees, you are basically overworked, and not in a good way. The positions of associate member and supernumerary were created over the past few years for a reason. Those people are now on your lists. This committee is a large exception. However, in other committees, we never see the same faces from one meeting to the next, in part because of that. Members have many duties, and committees are often negatively affected.
I suggest that people sit on this committee for a whole session. The whip would not use you on other committees. This would be your committees.
Why is the deputy speaker of the House paid more? Because he has no choice; he has to sit every day. Would any of you be prepared to do that for free? You probably wouldn't, since you have other duties as members. That job requires experts, but those members would become experts in macroeconomics, the supply, finances, and so on.