Mr. Chairman, I for one will be voting in favour of this amendment. If we want the Chair to be impartial and to truly refrain from taking part in the debate, we are making a mistake by not including a government member on the committee. In any event, whether it passes or note, the committee's decisions will be unanimous. I would prefer that someone truly represent the government, that we get to the bottom of things and that arguments be put forward. Ultimately, it will be the same because it will be unanimous. If not, the committee will not go forward and no recommendation will be submitted to the main committee.
If we lay the burden of defending the government's position on the Chair, people will say that he is siding with the government. It would be simpler to have a government representative on the subcommittee so that when decisions need to be made, that individual can make recommendations and defend the arguments put forward. That way, we can have a real debate, one in which the Chair will not be required to take part. The Chair must be allowed to do his job, which is to chair the committee. He should not take part in the debate.
With this new government, we are asking the Chair to be impartial. Otherwise, as soon as the committee sits, members will end up being upset with the Chair, and that should not be the case. Therefore, I am in favour of the amendment.
A government representative has sat on other committees in the past. It is healthy to have a government representative so that a real debate can take place, one in which the Chair should not be involved. Let the Chairman chair the committee. That is what he was elected to do.