Yvon has just presented my argument, and it was only that, that if you want the chair to be impartial and really not get involved with any decision-making--and I think that's probably the way it should be--then that effectively means there's no government voice on the committee. Now, if you allow the chair to participate and have his voice heard as part of the consensus or non-consensus, that's fine, but if you want the chair to be completely impartial--and I think that's the correct way to go--then I would suggest Yvon is quite correct that we should have a government member on the committee just to represent the government when determining the agenda and other items that that committee considers.
On November 25th, 2008. See this statement in context.