Mr. Chair, I would propose an amendment to that motion so that it would include two members of the government side, very much like the subcommittee on private members' business we just adopted. The private members' business committee has functioned well working that way. We've had other subcommittees that have worked that way, one of which I chaired dealing with the Ethics Commissioner, the ethics code and the forms under the Ethics Commissioner.
There is a real advantage to doing it this way. You have a member of each party able to represent the party's interests on the committee.
As the subcommittee was structured last time, which is essentially what Madam Jennings has proposed to do again, the member from the government side was also the chair of the subcommittee. This meant that he could not, without entering into a conflict between his two roles, represent the government side and the government's interests and be an objective chair of the committee at the same time. So I think that amendment would facilitate the subcommittee working well. You may recall that it didn't work terribly well last time, whereas there are other subcommittees that have a history of working very well indeed simply by allowing a division of those roles.
I'll just make the obvious point that the opposition still commands a very firm and clear majority within the subcommittee on all questions. That wouldn't change. It would simply allow for a division of those two roles between the chair and the person representing the government's interests.